From List-Managers-Owner Sat Jul 3 16:23:08 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA03263; Sat, 3 Jul 93 16:23:08 GMT
Received: from msmail.kgs.ukans.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA03256; Sat, 3 Jul 93 09:23:01 PDT
Message-Id: <9307031623.AA03256@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM>
Date: 3 Jul 1993 11:21:49 -0600
From: "pfterry"
Subject:
To: "List Managers Mailing List"
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
I'm running Anastasios Kotsikonas' listserver version: 5.5 with Ida sendmail (I
think) on a Sun IPC. One member of a mailing list that I manage has complained
that it is "primitive" compared to the 1.7f version of the VMS listserver.
Specifically, it doesn't support some of the commands that he's become used to.
Is there a way that I can improve the functionality of the listserver on the
Sun?
Thanks in advance.
Fred
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fred Terry, Kansas Geological Survey
1930 Constant Ave., Lawrence, KS 66047
pfterry@cyberpunk.kgs.ukans.edu
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I've tried to relax, but--I dunno--I seem to be more comfortable tense.
From List-Managers-Owner Sat Jul 3 23:44:28 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA04400; Sat, 3 Jul 93 23:44:28 GMT
Received: from CS.UWindsor.Ca (csgate.lamf.uwindsor.ca) by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA04393; Sat, 3 Jul 93 16:44:20 PDT
Received: by CS.UWindsor.Ca (4.1/SMI-DDN)
id AA09921; Sat, 3 Jul 93 18:35:56 EDT
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1993 14:15:51 -0400
From: "F. Scott Ophof"
Subject: Re: Your mail
Message-Id: <930703.141551-0400@MReXX-0.18>
To: "List Managers Mailing List"
In-Reply-To: Your message of 3 Jul 1993 11:21:49 -0600
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 3 Jul 1993 11:21:49 -0600 pfterry said:
>I'm running Anastasios Kotsikonas' listserver version: 5.5 with Ida sendmail (I
>think) on a Sun IPC. One member of a mailing list that I manage has complained
>that it is "primitive" compared to the 1.7f version of the VMS listserver.
>Specifically, it doesn't support some of the commands that he's become used to.
>Is there a way that I can improve the functionality of the listserver on the
>Sun?
Ahh.. Now this is a bit of a "curious" situation; it looks like you
are comparing Tasos' "Listserver" with Eric's "Revised LISTSERV", a
listserver versus a listserv... :-)
But hey! I didn't know Eric had already put a VMS version of his
MLM into production (or is it a beta version?). Now the funny thing
is that someone on comp.mail.misc is asking for just such a thing...
Has Eric posted more news re a VMS version of "LISTSERV"?
Another (formal) point btw.
The name of Tasos' product is "Listserver", that of Eric's is
"LISTSERV", both are list servers - or more general - Mailing List
Managers. I just issued a formal correction on comp.mail.misc;
some people seem to think "listserv" is a generic word, which imho
is like saying all gems (false and real) are "diamonds"...
>I've tried to relax, but--I dunno--I seem to be more comfortable tense.
So did I, but any further, and I'm dead... ;-)
Regards.
$$\
From List-Managers-Owner Tue Jul 6 14:52:39 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA11079; Tue, 6 Jul 93 14:52:39 GMT
Received: from radiomail (radiomail.net) by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA11072; Tue, 6 Jul 93 07:52:33 PDT
Received: by radiomail; id AA10566; Tue, 6 Jul 93 07:48:05 -0700
Message-Id: <9307061448.AA10566@radiomail>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1993 07:46:53 -0800 GMT
From: Mark Schaub (via RadioMail)
Subject: UNIX listserver
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Anybody know of a listserver that runs under UNIX? Specifically, we have a Data General 6240 running DG/UX 5.4.2 (it's AT&T compliant).
Thanks
=======================================
Mark A. Schaub
Manager, Networks & Telecommunications
University Hospital Consortium
uhw2@RadioMail.Net
schaub@borg.uhc.edu
=======================================
From List-Managers-Owner Tue Jul 6 16:31:57 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA11218; Tue, 6 Jul 93 16:31:57 GMT
Received: from radiomail (radiomail.net) by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA11211; Tue, 6 Jul 93 09:31:51 PDT
Received: by radiomail; id AA13789; Tue, 6 Jul 93 09:27:41 -0700
Message-Id: <9307061627.AA13789@radiomail>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1993 09:26:30 -0800 GMT
From: Mark Schaub (via RadioMail)
Subject: email to MHS
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
o: list-manager@greatcircle.com
Ok, now I've got a really tough one.
Our email comes into our big UNIX box. Most of our network users are on PCs and Novell with MHS as a local mail router. I need to get the mail moved from the UNIX box over to the Novell mail server so MHS can deliver it.
Is anybody using something that does this???
Thanks
---------------------------------------
Mark A. Schaub
Manager, Networks & Telecommunications
University Hospital Consortium
uhw2@radiomail.net schaub@borg.uhc.edu
---------------------------------------
From List-Managers-Owner Tue Jul 6 19:43:20 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA11652; Tue, 6 Jul 93 19:43:20 GMT
Received: from mozart.aero.ufl.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA11639; Tue, 6 Jul 93 12:43:10 PDT
Received: from localhost by mozart.aero.ufl.edu (5.61ufl/4.10)
id AA11581; Tue, 6 Jul 93 15:45:45 -0400
Message-Id: <9307061945.AA11581@mozart.aero.ufl.edu>
To: Mark Schaub (via RadioMail) ,
list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: UNIX listserver
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 06 Jul 93 07:46:53 BST."
<9307061448.AA10566@radiomail>
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 93 15:45:44 -0400
From: mauricio@mozart.aero.ufl.edu
X-Mts: smtp
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
> Anybody know of a listserver that runs under UNIX? Specifically, we have a
> Data General 6240 running DG/UX 5.4.2 (it's AT&T compliant).
The two that I remember right now are Procmail and Listserv...
From List-Managers-Owner Wed Jul 7 00:56:14 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA12430; Wed, 7 Jul 93 00:56:14 GMT
Received: from relay1.UU.NET by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA12407; Tue, 6 Jul 93 17:55:56 PDT
Received: from spool.uu.net (via LOCALHOST) by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP
(5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA13825; Tue, 6 Jul 93 20:58:15 -0400
Received: from telesoft.UUCP by spool.uu.net with UUCP/RMAIL
(queueing-rmail) id 205644.7522; Tue, 6 Jul 1993 20:56:44 EDT
Received: from lone.alsys.com by flash.alsys.com (4.1/TS-1.2a)
id AA26454; Tue, 6 Jul 93 17:31:28 PDT
Message-Id: <9307070031.AA26454@flash.alsys.com>
Received: by lone.alsys.com (4.1/TS-1.2)
id AA21009; Tue, 6 Jul 93 17:31:25 PDT
From: mnejat@lone.alsys.com
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1993 17:31:25 PDT
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.2 4/12/91)
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Having problems building listserver6.0
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
I get the following messages when trying to build listserver 6.0:
flash (16) setup
UNIX ListServer system setup script
-----------------------------------
Version 6.0
System already built under /user/server
Looks like you cannot compile with the -DHAVE_SELECT_H flag; run systest.
Looks like you cannot compile with the -DHAVE_ULIMIT_H flag; run systest.
Compile with -DHAVE_SETJMP_H if you already have not done so.
Compile with -DHAVE_TZFILE_H if you already have not done so.
You may wish to compile with -DSYSLOG=facility to use syslog(3) for reports.
Do you wish to use unproto for compilation [n]? y
Enter the directory unproto resides: /user/mnejat/tools/unproto
cc -c -g -I/user/server -I/user/server/src -I/usr/server/src -I/usr/include -I/
user/server/src -DHAVE_SETJMP_H -DHAVE_TZFILE_H -Dbsd signals.c
"signals.c", line 55: syntax error at or near word "struct"
"signals.c", line 56: syntax error at or near type word "char"
"signals.c", line 57: syntax error at or near type word "int"
"signals.c", line 59: syntax error at or near type word "void"
"signals.c", line 60: syntax error at or near type word "void"
"signals.c", line 61: syntax error at or near type word "int"
"signals.c", line 121: syntax error at or near type word "int"
"signals.c", line 128: sig undefined
*** Error code 1
make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `signals.o'
setup: error(s) during compilation; quitting
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have changed the DEFINE statements in src/Makefile to what the setup
script suggests, but don't know what to do about the syntax errors.
I don't have an ANSI C compiler and am using unproto program.
Here is the output of uname -a command:
flash (22) uname -a
SunOS flash 4.1 5 sun4
Any help is greatly appriciated,
--Mehregan Nejat
From List-Managers-Owner Wed Jul 7 01:48:21 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA12578; Wed, 7 Jul 93 01:48:21 GMT
Received: from walt.disney.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA12571; Tue, 6 Jul 93 18:48:14 PDT
Received: from dalsdb (dalsdb.fa.disney.com) by walt.disney.com with SMTP id AA27153
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.3 for List-Managers@greatcircle.com); Tue, 6 Jul 1993 18:51:01 -0700
Received: from bimbette.wdp_animation by dalsdb with smtp
(Smail3.1.28.1 #53) id m0oDOXe-000FckC; Tue, 6 Jul 93 18:43 PDT
Message-Id:
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 93 18:43 PDT
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: cc'ing my postmaster
From: sullivan@fa.disney.com
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Some sites cc my postmaster when they send bounce messages. Is
there something I can put in the header to either keep this from
happening or to redirect those cc's to me?
Michael Sullivan sullivan@fa.disney.com
Walt Disney Feature Animation +1 818 544 2683 (voice)
Glendale, CA +1 818 544 4579 (fax)
From List-Managers-Owner Wed Jul 7 20:20:45 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA14800; Wed, 7 Jul 93 20:20:45 GMT
Received: from CS.UWindsor.Ca ([137.207.192.3]) by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA14793; Wed, 7 Jul 93 13:20:35 PDT
Received: by CS.UWindsor.Ca (4.1/SMI-DDN)
id AA02909; Wed, 7 Jul 93 16:22:37 EDT
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993 15:52:35 -0400
From: "F. Scott Ophof"
Subject: Re: UNIX listserver
Message-Id: <930707.155235-0400@MReXX-0.18>
To:
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 6 Jul 1993 07:46:53 -0800 GMT
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Tue, 6 Jul 1993 07:46:53 -0800 GMT Mark A. Schaub said:
>Anybody know of a listserver that runs under UNIX? Specifically, we have a
>Data General 6240 running DG/UX 5.4.2 (it's AT&T compliant).
In all fairness to the authors of the "Revised LISTSERV" resp. the
"ListServer" applications, may I suggest that one use a generic like
"Mailing List Manager"? The MLM generic seems to have been around
for some time, and imho quite accurately describes what you are
referring to here.
Aside from the issue of fairness to the authors, there's the
practical question of confusion amongst users of these MLMs.
Anyone used to "Revised LISTSERV" for example can get rather upset
when addressing an MLM with and getting unexpected
responses...
So for those currently using as address but not
running "Revised LISTSERV", and for those thinking of using an MLM
other than the "Revised LISTSERV" MLM, may I urge you to consider
changeing that address to something more applicable to the MLM (to
be) used?
Regards, and thanks in advance.
$$\
From List-Managers-Owner Wed Jul 7 20:37:21 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA14856; Wed, 7 Jul 93 20:37:21 GMT
Received: from cs-mail.bu.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA14849; Wed, 7 Jul 93 13:37:12 PDT
Received: from CS.BU.EDU by cs-mail.bu.edu (5.61+++/Spike-2.1)
id AA25257; Wed, 7 Jul 93 16:39:53 -0400
From: tasos@cs-mail.bu.edu (Anastasios Kotsikonas)
Received: by cs.bu.edu (5.61+++/Spike-2.1)
id AA12523; Wed, 7 Jul 93 16:39:52 -0400
Message-Id: <9307072039.AA12523@cs.bu.edu>
Subject: Re: UNIX listserver
To: Ophof@CS.UWindsor.Ca (F. Scott Ophof)
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993 16:39:50 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: <930707.155235-0400@MReXX-0.18> from "F. Scott Ophof" at Jul 7, 93 03:52:35 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL20]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1408
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
>
> On Tue, 6 Jul 1993 07:46:53 -0800 GMT Mark A. Schaub said:
> >Anybody know of a listserver that runs under UNIX? Specifically, we have a
> >Data General 6240 running DG/UX 5.4.2 (it's AT&T compliant).
>
> In all fairness to the authors of the "Revised LISTSERV" resp. the
> "ListServer" applications, may I suggest that one use a generic like
> "Mailing List Manager"? The MLM generic seems to have been around
> for some time, and imho quite accurately describes what you are
> referring to here.
>
> Aside from the issue of fairness to the authors, there's the
> practical question of confusion amongst users of these MLMs.
> Anyone used to "Revised LISTSERV" for example can get rather upset
> when addressing an MLM with and getting unexpected
> responses...
> So for those currently using as address but not
> running "Revised LISTSERV", and for those thinking of using an MLM
> other than the "Revised LISTSERV" MLM, may I urge you to consider
> changeing that address to something more applicable to the MLM (to
> be) used?
This is becoming a bit annoying. This issue has been discussed before and
in GREAT length on this list and most recently on comp.unix.sys5.r4 (a totally
inappropriate newsgroup) and comp.mail.misc. Are we going to see the end
of it ever, or will this message pop up every time one uses the string
"listserv" in all of its forms?
Tasos
From List-Managers-Owner Wed Jul 7 20:46:13 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA14887; Wed, 7 Jul 93 20:46:13 GMT
Received: from note2.nsf.gov by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA14880; Wed, 7 Jul 93 13:46:03 PDT
Received: from z.nsf.gov by Note2.nsf.gov id aa00280; 7 Jul 93 16:40 EDT
Received: by z.nsf.gov (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA02934; Wed, 7 Jul 93 16:43:03 EDT
Message-Id: <9307072043.AA02934@z.nsf.gov>
From: "Michael H. Morse"
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993 16:43:03 EDT
In-Reply-To: "F. Scott Ophof"
"Re: UNIX listserver" (Jul 7, 3:52pm)
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.1 5/02/90)
To: "F. Scott Ophof" , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Mmdf-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at Note2.nsf.gov
Subject: Re: UNIX listserver
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
> Aside from the issue of fairness to the authors, there's the
> practical question of confusion amongst users of these MLMs.
> Anyone used to "Revised LISTSERV" for example can get rather upset
> when addressing an MLM with and getting unexpected
> responses...
> So for those currently using as address but not
> running "Revised LISTSERV", and for those thinking of using an MLM
> other than the "Revised LISTSERV" MLM, may I urge you to consider
> changeing that address to something more applicable to the MLM (to
> be) used?
Hmmm. I have over 2,000 users on a non-"Revised Listserv" called
"listserv@nsf.gov", and nobody has ever complained. Could it be that
this esoteric stuff is more interesting to developers than to users,
who just might be smarter than we think? Could it be that users of
"Revised LISTSERV" are fewer in number than the hordes of new
users that are flooding the Internet?
As far as fairness to the authors, I don't think the property rights
go as far as to the name "listserver". "LISTSERV" is just
"listserver" truncated to 8 characters to meet the needs of an e-mail
system based on the concept of moving punched cards between hosts.
If I change the name to "LISTMGR", how am I providing better service?
I rather think I'll be confusing people.
--Mike
From List-Managers-Owner Thu Jul 8 05:32:56 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA15972; Thu, 8 Jul 93 05:32:56 GMT
Received: from CS.UWindsor.Ca (csgate.lamf.uwindsor.ca) by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA15959; Wed, 7 Jul 93 22:32:45 PDT
Received: by CS.UWindsor.Ca (4.1/SMI-DDN)
id AA08967; Thu, 8 Jul 93 01:34:49 EDT
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993 23:02:18 -0400
From: "F. Scott Ophof"
Subject: Re: UNIX listserver
Message-Id: <930707.230218-0400@MReXX-0.18>
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 7 Jul 1993 16:43:03 EDT
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Wed, 7 Jul 1993 16:43:03 EDT Michael H. Morse said:
>Hmmm. I have over 2,000 users on a non-"Revised Listserv" called
>"listserv@nsf.gov", and nobody has ever complained.
I don't see any connection between no-complaints and your MLM-addr.
And if the MLM you refer to as reachable at is
not "Revised LISTSERV", then you've got your first comment right
here. I'm requesting polite respect for useage elsewhere in the
networks in re the word "LISTSERV".
> Could it be that users of
>"Revised LISTSERV" are fewer in number than the hordes of new
>users that are flooding the Internet?
I fail to see the relevance between number-of-users and politeness.
>As far as fairness to the authors, I don't think the property rights
>go as far as to the name "listserver".
The name "ListServer" is in use by the MLM implemented by Tasos.
I sincerely hope you respect his use of that word.
>If I change the name to "LISTMGR", how am I providing better service?
>I rather think I'll be confusing people.
You would be trading a temporary and small confusion NOW against a
massive confusion later on.
Furthermore, many MLMs run on machines at academic sites. Academia
exist to educate their students, not only in pure knowledge, but
also the applied variety. And last but not least, to further their
sense of fairness, ethics, and morals. If I'm not mistaken, these
last three should also be integral to governmental institutes.
Regards.
$$\
From List-Managers-Owner Thu Jul 8 05:32:57 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA15974; Thu, 8 Jul 93 05:32:57 GMT
Received: from CS.UWindsor.Ca (csgate.lamf.uwindsor.ca) by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA15960; Wed, 7 Jul 93 22:32:46 PDT
Received: by CS.UWindsor.Ca (4.1/SMI-DDN)
id AA08973; Thu, 8 Jul 93 01:34:51 EDT
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993 23:53:29 -0400
From: "F. Scott Ophof"
Subject: Re: UNIX listserver
Message-Id: <930707.235329-0400@MReXX-0.18>
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 7 Jul 1993 16:39:50 -0400 (EDT)
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Wed, 7 Jul 1993 16:39:50 -0400 (EDT) Anastasios Kotsikonas said:
>This is becoming a bit annoying. This issue has been discussed before and
>in GREAT length on this list and most recently on comp.unix.sys5.r4 (a totally
>inappropriate newsgroup) and comp.mail.misc. Are we going to see the end
>of it ever, or will this message pop up every time one uses the string
>"listserv" in all of its forms?
I sincerely hope to see this issue end with polite respect given (in
this case) to the authors and users of various MLMs.
As to how the discussion got onto comp.unix.sys5.r4, I don't know.
Possibly because someone wanted it there? Are you implying that
that newsgroup is exempted from such issues?
Regards.
$$\
From List-Managers-Owner Thu Jul 8 20:27:42 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA18088; Thu, 8 Jul 93 20:27:42 GMT
Received: from note2.nsf.gov by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA18081; Thu, 8 Jul 93 13:27:33 PDT
Received: from z.nsf.gov by Note2.nsf.gov id aa09243; 8 Jul 93 7:51 EDT
Received: by z.nsf.gov (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA03111; Thu, 8 Jul 93 07:55:00 EDT
Message-Id: <9307081155.AA03111@z.nsf.gov>
From: "Michael H. Morse"
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 07:54:59 EDT
In-Reply-To: "F. Scott Ophof"
"Re: UNIX listserver" (Jul 7, 11:02pm)
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.1 5/02/90)
To: "F. Scott Ophof" , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: UNIX listserver
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
> >As far as fairness to the authors, I don't think the property rights
> >go as far as to the name "listserver".
>
> The name "ListServer" is in use by the MLM implemented by Tasos.
> I sincerely hope you respect his use of that word.
Now I'm *really* confused. We *use* Tasos' implementation. So, does
that mean I have the right (and meet your standards of politeness) to
use the name "listserver"??? If so, then I *must* use the address
"listserv" as well. You see, we have a Unix host on the BITNET, and
some BITNET sites have 8-character restrictions on addresses. Now
what do you suggest?
--Mike
From List-Managers-Owner Thu Jul 8 20:49:54 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA18132; Thu, 8 Jul 93 20:49:54 GMT
Received: from d.ecc.engr.uky.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA18124; Thu, 8 Jul 93 13:49:45 PDT
Received: from s.ecc.engr.uky.edu by d.ecc.engr.uky.edu (5.59/25-eef)
id AA06340; Thu, 8 Jul 93 16:16:10 EDT
Received: by s.ecc.engr.uky.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA07663; Thu, 8 Jul 93 16:29:54 EDT
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 93 16:29:54 EDT
From: morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Message-Id: <9307082029.AA07663@s.ecc.engr.uky.edu>
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: UNIX listserver
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
>> >As far as fairness to the authors, I don't think the property rights
>> >go as far as to the name "listserver".
>>
>> The name "ListServer" is in use by the MLM implemented by Tasos.
>> I sincerely hope you respect his use of that word.
>
>Now I'm *really* confused. We *use* Tasos' implementation. So, does
>that mean I have the right (and meet your standards of politeness) to
>use the name "listserver"??? If so, then I *must* use the address
>"listserv" as well. You see, we have a Unix host on the BITNET, and
>some BITNET sites have 8-character restrictions on addresses. Now
>what do you suggest?
Quite frankly, I suggest that we find something more meaningful to
discuss. We can all find naming clashes; look at the current flame-
war in cracking/phreaking circles over some 15-year-old's appropria-
tion of the name "Legion of Doom."
How many of us call our HP-UX systems "Unix"? How about those Macs
running A/UX? Are they "Unix"? PRIMIX? Solaris? HCX/UX? On and
on and on......*sigh*...........we could go on all summer long with
this stuff.
I've seen this particular flamewar crop up on BITNET lists (such as
LSTOWN-L and NODEINFO), Usenet newsgroups, and (most recently) here
on List-Managers.
All the world is not Eric Thomas' Revised LISTSERV, nor is it Tasos'
implementation. Gee, what if I run Majordomo and call it something
like "mailserv@engr.uky.edu"? What if I write an exact Unix clone
of LISTSERV? Arrgh.....
--Wes
From List-Managers-Owner Fri Jul 9 01:08:24 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA19074; Fri, 9 Jul 93 01:08:24 GMT
Received: from CS.UWindsor.Ca (csgate.lamf.uwindsor.ca) by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA19067; Thu, 8 Jul 93 18:08:13 PDT
Received: by CS.UWindsor.Ca (4.1/SMI-DDN)
id AA24015; Thu, 8 Jul 93 21:09:52 EDT
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 18:46:59 -0400
From: "F. Scott Ophof"
Subject: Re: UNIX listserver
Message-Id: <930708.184659-0400@MReXX-0.18>
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 8 Jul 93 16:29:54 EDT
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Thu, 8 Jul 93 16:29:54 EDT Wes Morgan said:
>On Thu, 8 Jul 1993 07:54:59 EDT Michael H. Morse said:
>>Scott Ophof said:
>>> (I think) Michael H. Morse said:
>>> >As far as fairness to the authors, I don't think the property rights
>>> >go as far as to the name "listserver".
>>> The name "ListServer" is in use by the MLM implemented by Tasos.
>>> I sincerely hope you respect his use of that word.
>>Now I'm *really* confused. We *use* Tasos' implementation. So, does
>>that mean I have the right (and meet your standards of politeness) to
>>use the name "listserver"??? If so, then I *must* use the address
>>"listserv" as well. You see, we have a Unix host on the BITNET, and
>>some BITNET sites have 8-character restrictions on addresses. Now
>>what do you suggest?
I think it would be fair to say that it would be nice to have the
address reflect which MLM is addressed, except where users could get
confused by a different behaviour than the address would imply.
So if it's a "ListServer" running on a BITnet node, I personally
would go for something like (maybe) "L-SERVER" to ensure users
wouldn't expect a "Revised LISTSERV".
>How many of us call our HP-UX systems "Unix"? How about those Macs
>running A/UX? Are they "Unix"? PRIMIX? Solaris? HCX/UX? On and
Ouch... Yes, this is indeed a sore point too; they're all based on
the "Unix" concept, but different enough to confuse the users...
Gee, what if I run Majordomo and call it something
>like "mailserv@engr.uky.edu"?
If there's no MLM using "MailServ" as product name, then why not?
Though in the interest of the users, it wouldn't really be such a
good idea, right?
>What if I write an exact Unix clone of LISTSERV? Arrgh.....
Which users & maintainers etc. couldn't distinguish from "Revised
LISTSERV" and interfacing with the other "Revised LISTSERV"s exactly
as they do with each other? Of course you wouldn't use "Revised
LISTSERV" code, or use "LISTSERV" as product name... :-)
I would very much applaud such a project, and point out that CREN
currently is engaged in just such a project! And I'd sincerely hope
Eric wouldn't grumble at -type addresses being used.
If I'm not mistaken, Tasos' intention was that "ListServer" be
indistinguishable from "Revised LISTSERV" as to the common subset
of functionality and user-interface.
Regards.
$$\
From List-Managers-Owner Fri Jul 9 01:27:50 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA19101; Fri, 9 Jul 93 01:27:50 GMT
Received: from albert.gnu.ai.mit.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA19094; Thu, 8 Jul 93 18:27:42 PDT
Received: from nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu by albert.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) with SMTP
id ; Thu, 8 Jul 93 21:29:56 -0400
Received: by nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu (15.11/4.0)
id ; Thu, 8 Jul 93 21:29:52 edt
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 93 21:29:52 edt
From: tower@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Message-Id: <9307090129.AA24464@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
To: Ophof@cs.uwindsor.ca
Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: <930708.184659-0400@MReXX-0.18> "Ophof@cs.uwindsor.ca"
Reply-To: tower@prep.ai.mit.edu
Organization: Project GNU, Free Software Foundation,
675 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139-3309, USA +1 (617) 876-3296
Home: 36 Porter Street, Somerville, MA 02143, USA +1 (617) 623-7739
Subject: UNIX listserver
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 18:46:59 -0400
From: "F. Scott Ophof"
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@greatcircle.com
Precedence: bulk
On Thu, 8 Jul 93 16:29:54 EDT Wes Morgan said:
>On Thu, 8 Jul 1993 07:54:59 EDT Michael H. Morse said:
>>Scott Ophof said:
>>> (I think) Michael H. Morse said:
>>> >As far as fairness to the authors, I don't think the property rights
>>> >go as far as to the name "listserver".
>>> The name "ListServer" is in use by the MLM implemented by Tasos.
>>> I sincerely hope you respect his use of that word.
>>Now I'm *really* confused. We *use* Tasos' implementation. So, does
>>that mean I have the right (and meet your standards of politeness) to
>>use the name "listserver"??? If so, then I *must* use the address
>>"listserv" as well. You see, we have a Unix host on the BITNET, and
>>some BITNET sites have 8-character restrictions on addresses. Now
>>what do you suggest?
I think it would be fair to say that it would be nice to have the
address reflect which MLM is addressed, except where users could get
confused by a different behaviour than the address would imply.
So if it's a "ListServer" running on a BITnet node, I personally
would go for something like (maybe) "L-SERVER" to ensure users
wouldn't expect a "Revised LISTSERV".
Being more interested in serving users, I would have all known MLM
addresses on my host pointing at whichever MLM program I was using.
Users don't like having programmers and system administrators require
them to know many many different ways of doing one thing. And I agree
with the users.
Yes, a user who contacts an MLM he doesn't know, at the "name/address"
of one he does know will be a little confused, but at least he'll get
enough information to go forward, rather then a "User Unknown..."
thanx -len
Member, League for Programming Freedom. Ask: lpf@uunet.uu.net
From List-Managers-Owner Fri Jul 9 05:05:17 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA19432; Fri, 9 Jul 93 05:05:17 GMT
Received: from uu7.psi.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA19422; Thu, 8 Jul 93 22:05:10 PDT
Received: by uu7.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP;
id AA17805 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 93 00:52:25 -0400
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 93 22:41:27 GMT
From: rick@ssg.com (Rick Emerson)
Received: by ssg.com (4.0/3.2.083191-System Support Group)
id AA03862; Thu, 8 Jul 93 22:41:27 GMT
Message-Id: <9307082241.AA03862@ssg.com>
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: UNIX listserver
In-Reply-To: <9307081155.AA03111@z.nsf.gov>
References: <9307081155.AA03111@z.nsf.gov>
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
"Michael H. Morse" writes:
> > >As far as fairness to the authors, I don't think the property rights
> > >go as far as to the name "listserver".
> >
> > The name "ListServer" is in use by the MLM implemented by Tasos.
> > I sincerely hope you respect his use of that word.
>
> Now I'm *really* confused. We *use* Tasos' implementation. So, does
> that mean I have the right (and meet your standards of politeness) to
> use the name "listserver"??? If so, then I *must* use the address
> "listserv" as well. You see, we have a Unix host on the BITNET, and
> some BITNET sites have 8-character restrictions on addresses. Now
> what do you suggest?
>
> --Mike
What not call the darn thing a "whizbang" and be done with it. It has
eight letters and looks nothing like the name someone seems to feel he
holds world rights to.
The noise level on this list has now managed to exceed 100%. I'm
outta here!
Rick
| Richard B. Emerson | Replies may be sent to: |
| System Support Group | rick@ssg.com |
| 940 Delaware Avenue |-------------------------------------------------+
| Lansdale, PA 19446 USA | "Life is just a tire swing..." |
| Voice: 215.855.1607 | -- Jimmy Buffett |
From List-Managers-Owner Fri Jul 9 09:55:12 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA20314; Fri, 9 Jul 93 09:55:12 GMT
Received: from castor.cc.utu.fi by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA20305; Fri, 9 Jul 93 02:55:02 PDT
Received: by utu.fi id <30487-5>; Fri, 9 Jul 1993 12:57:39 +0300
Subject: Re: UNIX listserver
From: Matti Aarnio
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 12:57:38 +0300
In-Reply-To: <9307090810.AA19938@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> from "List-Managers-Digest-Owner@GreatCircle.COM" at Jul 9, 93 11:10:05 am
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-Length: 3103
Message-Id: <93Jul9.125739eet_dst.30487-5@utu.fi>
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
>From: "F. Scott Ophof"
> On Thu, 8 Jul 93 16:29:54 EDT Wes Morgan said:
> >What if I write an exact Unix clone of LISTSERV? Arrgh.....
>
> Which users & maintainers etc. couldn't distinguish from "Revised
> LISTSERV" and interfacing with the other "Revised LISTSERV"s exactly
> as they do with each other? Of course you wouldn't use "Revised
> LISTSERV" code, or use "LISTSERV" as product name... :-)
> I would very much applaud such a project, and point out that CREN
> currently is engaged in just such a project! And I'd sincerely hope
> Eric wouldn't grumble at -type addresses being used.
No, he won't, however he does expect that such LISTSERVers do act
like Revised LISTSERVs, and one BIG snafu in it is R-LISTSERV's
DISTRIBUTE-protocol, which is documented in RFC 1429. (Yes, it really
looks alike MVS JCL, so what ?)
Actually it is a sort of SMTP inside the mail body. R-LISTSERVs just
handle it better.
The protocol is easy to implement, but how do you find the (near-)
optimal list of peers willing to run it ? R-LISTSERVs do it by
centralized control, and monthly distributed routing database.
(They are run in the BITNET after all..)
A month or two ago Eric made a contract with EARN to develope a
VMS version of the R-LISTSERV. VMS because VMS Pascal is nearest
to the PASCAL-VS, that most of the R-LISTSERV is written today.
I assume some of you are going to IETF at Amsterdam, could we
try to find a BOF for "Bulk-MXes" -- for a way to discover who
are willing to run bulk deliveries around the network.
Hmm.. Consider scenario:
Host-A(Finland) a list of 1000 recipients of which 20 in Finland.
Now the usual thing is to start spiffing MX and A questions around
the network, and then deliver mail to each and all of them via individual
connections, unless by some miracle multiple recipients are at the same
host/mx, or then by getting into some arrangement with some sites abroad,
and define static routes to large areas of domain space via those..
What I wish for is a simple scheme of finding willing
Bulk-delivery servers, much like R-LISTSERVs. In scenario I usually
consider, next logical hop is in Sweden, which then splits to Central
Europe (say, Paris, Amsterdam, CERN, Bonn -- corners of EBONE), and
USA+Asia.
Again, next step would go to - say USA (EDU that is):
How to locate regionals onto which to push the mail, or just use plain
ordinary MXes ? If the scheme is multi-level, how does one avoid
unnecessary traversal to higher-levels ?
How would such resource finding operate ?
Especially as it would be good to assume that people at networks know
their connection routes, and are thus better positioned to place such
routing information into the DNS.
> If I'm not mistaken, Tasos' intention was that "ListServer" be
> indistinguishable from "Revised LISTSERV" as to the common subset
> of functionality and user-interface.
Well, let commands be the same, and their behaviour, but it can
still present a bit different outlook ;)
> Regards.
> $$\
/Matti Aarnio
From List-Managers-Owner Sat Jul 10 01:34:17 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA21807; Sat, 10 Jul 93 01:34:17 GMT
Received: from CS.UWindsor.Ca (csgate.lamf.uwindsor.ca) by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA21800; Fri, 9 Jul 93 18:33:52 PDT
Received: by CS.UWindsor.Ca (4.1/SMI-DDN)
id AA11233; Fri, 9 Jul 93 21:35:51 EDT
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 16:04:10 -0400
From: "F. Scott Ophof"
Subject: Re: UNIX listserver
Message-Id: <930709.160410-0400@MReXX-0.18>
To:
To:
To:
Cc: Eric Thomas
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 7 Jul 1993 16:43:03 EDT
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Wed, 7 Jul 1993 16:43:03 EDT Michael H. Morse said on List-Managers:
>Scott Ophof said:
>> Aside from the issue of fairness to the authors, there's the
>> practical question of confusion amongst users of these MLMs.
>> Anyone used to "Revised LISTSERV" for example can get rather upset
>> when addressing an MLM with and getting unexpected
>> responses...
>Hmmm. I have over 2,000 users on a non-"Revised Listserv" called
>"listserv@nsf.gov", and nobody has ever complained. Could it be that
>this esoteric stuff is more interesting to developers than to users,
>who just might be smarter than we think? Could it be that users of
>"Revised LISTSERV" are fewer in number than the hordes of new
>users that are flooding the Internet?
I don't know how large those "hordes" are, and would be interested
in at least a fair guesstimate.
There is less guessing in the following extract from private mail
from Eric Thomas, where he suggests I point out to Michael a few
things. I chose to interpret that as meaning posting it was OK.
Start-of-quote:
|| [..] that he should refrain from talking about things he doesn't
|| know about, such as the reason why LISTSERV is called LISTSERV and
|| not something else, or the amount of users it has. LISTSERV's
|| membership exceeded 1,000,000 in June and it delivers 2-6 million
|| messages every day.
|| I waste several hours every month due to people who confuse 'unix
|| listserv' and LISTSERV. I even get bug reports for 'unix listserv'.
|| The confusion goes both ways, and some users ask why the command to
|| subscribe to LISTSERV lists is not 'add' like with their local unix
|| list server. The IETF thinks it is a very serious problem and wants
|| to standardize the syntax. You may quote as little or as much as
|| you want from this message.
End-of-quote.
I'd like to add that there are something like 2500-3000 lists
registered with "Revised LISTSERV".
As to those bug reports and confusion items Eric mentions, if I were
in his position I'd forward them straight to List-Managers, ListNix,
and other relevant lists/groups for resolving and CONTINUE to do so
till fair action was taken. But I'm not in his position, so all I
can do is what I'm doing now.
Aside from all else, user-confusion should be minimised, and anyone
with a heart for other network users would want to do so as soon as
possible, right?
Can anyone come up with figures on how many people are subscribed to
the non-"Revised LISTSERV" MLMs? Maybe we can then get some idea of
how many (and which) users would have to be re-educated IF various
MLM authors and people running MLMs were to consider making changes.
Regards, and thanks in advance.
$$\ F. Scott Ophof
From List-Managers-Owner Sat Jul 10 02:47:16 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA22549; Sat, 10 Jul 93 08:31:50 GMT
Received: from CS.UWindsor.Ca (csgate.lamf.uwindsor.ca) by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA22541; Sat, 10 Jul 93 01:31:42 PDT
Received: by CS.UWindsor.Ca (4.1/SMI-DDN)
id AA16339; Sat, 10 Jul 93 04:33:54 EDT
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1993 02:02:13 -0400
From: "F. Scott Ophof"
Subject: How to recognize mail from an MLM
Message-Id: <930710.020213-0400@MReXX-0.18>
To:
To:
To:
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Which single header in an email item consistently informs the reader
(or software) that the item is from a mailing list, and lists the
address (and name) of that mailing list? And in such a way that it
is clearly NOT mail from a *person*.
In the BITnet world the "Sender:" header was used for this purpose,
which doesn't seem to be correct in the Internet world...
BTW, I get confused by terminology like "mirrors", "exploders",
etc., so if you include such, an explanation would be greatly
appreciated (in plain English please?).
Regards, and thanks in advance.
$$\
From List-Managers-Owner Sat Jul 10 02:49:51 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA22556; Sat, 10 Jul 93 08:31:57 GMT
Received: from CS.UWindsor.Ca (csgate.lamf.uwindsor.ca) by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA22542; Sat, 10 Jul 93 01:31:44 PDT
Received: by CS.UWindsor.Ca (4.1/SMI-DDN)
id AA16345; Sat, 10 Jul 93 04:33:56 EDT
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1993 02:48:15 -0400
From: "F. Scott Ophof"
Subject: A step forward (was Re: UNIX listserver)
Message-Id: <930710.024815-0400@MReXX-0.18>
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 9 Jul 1993 12:57:38 +0300
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Fri, 9 Jul 1993 12:57:38 +0300 Matti Aarnio said:
>>From: "F. Scott Ophof"
>> And I'd sincerely hope
>> Eric wouldn't grumble at -type addresses being used.
> No, he won't, however he does expect that such LISTSERVers do act
>like Revised LISTSERVs, and one BIG snafu in it is R-LISTSERV's
>DISTRIBUTE-protocol, which is documented in RFC 1429. (Yes, it really
>looks alike MVS JCL, so what ?)
>Actually it is a sort of SMTP inside the mail body. R-LISTSERVs just
>handle it better.
Yes, but that's not much of a recommendation... (grin) I don't want
to flame, but imho it's also time a better Mail Transport Protocol
were developed than SMTP. Heck, maybe X.400 *is* the way to go?
Forget about the ridiculous user-addressing syntax; it clearly never
was meant to be human-readable, nor will it ever be. Besides, the
same can be said for the DNS format. An interface between machine-
readable addrs and something we humans can read is needed anyway.
But that's fodder for another list/group.
> The protocol is easy to implement, but how do you find the (near-)
>optimal list of peers willing to run it ? R-LISTSERVs do it by
>centralized control, and monthly distributed routing database.
>(They are run in the BITNET after all..)
Get together with the relevant BITnet people? They are probably
wrestling with the same problem for when "Revised LISTSERV" comes
to the Internet.
Your idea of getting together in Amsterdam sounds great! Wish I
could be there, listening to great minds at work. (sigh)
>Hmm.. Consider scenario:
Yikes! Out of my league. *Gone*! :-)
>> If I'm not mistaken, Tasos' intention was that "ListServer" be
>> indistinguishable from "Revised LISTSERV" as to the common subset
>> of functionality and user-interface.
> Well, let commands be the same, and their behaviour, but it can
>still present a bit different outlook ;)
Erm.. Please not if it confuses the users. And please note that it
certainly is time we all started thinking of users possibly having
differing mindsets. IMHO we should go one of the following routes:
1: Make the current user-interface FULLY understandable by ANY
human, be heesh a computer-user or not.
2: Ensure that the current interface is purely consistent for
machine-readability, and implement a user-interface ON TOP of
it, this last interface to be installed on the user side (a la
client-server model), completely adapted to the user and the
machine it's running on.
If we do (1), then we can be sure to run into trouble; there is NO
way a command set can be devised that is useable by ALL people on
Earth with the SAME ease-of-understanding. And I really don't think
it's fair to force English on non-English speakers.
This leaves route (2), which opens up the possibility of tailoring
that interface to each INDIVIDUAL users' wishes/mindset.
My point here is simply to indicate that we ARE at this milestone,
and it's nearing decision-time...
Regards.
$$\
From List-Managers-Owner Sat Jul 10 15:02:19 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA23157; Sat, 10 Jul 93 15:02:19 GMT
Received: from grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA23150; Sat, 10 Jul 93 08:02:12 PDT
Received: from localhost (wolf@localhost) by grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr (8.1C/8.1) id RAA19033; Sat, 10 Jul 1993 17:04:39 +0200
From: Christophe Wolfhugel
Message-Id: <199307101504.RAA19033@grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr>
Subject: RFC-822 parser in Perl ?
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1993 17:04:38 +0100 (MEST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL20]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 464
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Is there a real RFC-822 parser out there, by real I mean
a parser which would respect the syntax, and particularly quoted strings
and pairs.
I mean:
"stupid (yeah) user"@relay.host (comment)
should give
local part = "stupid (yeah) user"
host = relay.host
comment = com,ment
Yeah those addresses you only see twice in your life (generally really
close from an X.400 gateway :)).
--
Christophe Wolfhugel | Email: Christophe.Wolfhugel@grasp.insa-lyon.fr
From List-Managers-Owner Sun Jul 11 22:22:36 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA25451; Sun, 11 Jul 93 22:22:36 GMT
Received: from CS.UWindsor.Ca ([137.207.192.3]) by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA25444; Sun, 11 Jul 93 15:22:26 PDT
Received: by CS.UWindsor.Ca (4.1/SMI-DDN)
id AA08303; Sun, 11 Jul 93 18:23:59 EDT
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1993 13:49:22 -0400
From: "F. Scott Ophof"
Subject: Re: How to recognize mail from an MLM
Message-Id: <930711.134922-0400@MReXX-0.18>
To:
Cc:
Cc:
Cc:
In-Reply-To: Your message of 10 Jul 1993 14:22:20 GMT
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 10 Jul 1993 14:22:20 GMT Eric Thomas said on LSTSRV-L:
>On Sat, 10 Jul 1993 02:02:13 -0400 "F. Scott Ophof"
>said:
>>Which single header in an email item consistently informs the reader (or
>>software) that the item is from a mailing list, and lists the address
>>(and name) of that mailing list? And in such a way that it is clearly
>>NOT mail from a *person*.
>In the general case, none.
Though I hoped otherwise, I'm not surprised to see this answer.
>Using the 'Sender:' is correct in both worlds, the religious argument is
>about what to put in that field and what to do to the rest of the header.
>IETF lists come with a 'Sender:' field, so don't let anyone convince you
>that this field cannot be used by mailing lists.
OK, it may be USED by mailing lists, but (according to RFC822) not
for the PURPOSE for which "Revised LISTSERV" uses it.
But if Internet mail contains addresses like or
in the "Sender:" header to indicate the item comes
from an MLM, that to me doesn't ensure that those addresses will
consistently reflect the relevant mailing list. In other words, if
the "Sender:"-addr is:
or
will the following ALWAYS be true?
or could it also be:
or worse yet:
And besides and , are there any other
such words that have the same ("guaranteed") behaviour?
Recently I've seen items from some "Revised LISTSERV"s which have
"X-List:" headers, and that header-line has up to now consistently
displayed the relevant and correct list-address itself.
Do I sense an intention to use (and advertise using) that header for
that SINGLE purpose? If so, how does one ensure that that header
will only be used for THAT purpose?
Regards.
$$\
From List-Managers-Owner Mon Jul 12 10:10:18 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA26500; Mon, 12 Jul 93 10:10:18 GMT
Received: from sally.informatik.rwth-aachen.de ([137.226.112.172]) by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA26491; Mon, 12 Jul 93 03:09:54 PDT
Received: from hathi (hathi.Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE) by sally.informatik.rwth-aachen.de
(4.1/sally-2) id AA20976; Mon, 12 Jul 93 12:12:26 +0200
Received: by hathi (4.1/POOL.3)
id AA11460; Mon, 12 Jul 93 12:12:34 +0200
Message-Id: <9307121012.AA11460@hathi>
From: berg@pool.Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE (Stephen R. van den Berg)
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 12:12:31 +0200
In-Reply-To: "F. Scott Ophof"'s message as of 1993 Jul 10 Sat 2:02.
<930710.020213-0400@MReXX-0.18>
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: How to recognize mail from an MLM
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
"F. Scott Ophof" wrote:
>Which single header in an email item consistently informs the reader
>(or software) that the item is from a mailing list,
> And in such a way that it
>is clearly NOT mail from a *person*.
The answer to this question is easy: if there is a field in the header that
says:
Precendence: list
then it is from a mailinglist, and NEVER from a person. There is a small
catch here: not all lists set this field correctly (yet).
> and lists the
>address (and name) of that mailing list?
Well, this one is not so easy. I can only vouch for "procmail"-managed
mailinglists which contain:
Resent-From:
Resent-Sender:
X-Mailing-List: ...
With the exception that Resent-From: will only be added if it wasn't
already on the incoming mail.
--
Sincerely, berg@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de
Stephen R. van den Berg (AKA BuGless). berg@physik.tu-muenchen.de
I've never been superstitious! Knock on wood.
From List-Managers-Owner Mon Jul 12 13:01:36 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA26751; Mon, 12 Jul 93 13:01:36 GMT
Received: from mailman.nsf.gov by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA26744; Mon, 12 Jul 93 06:01:27 PDT
Received: from localhost by mailman.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA19382
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Mon, 12 Jul 1993 09:04:38 -0400
Message-Id: <199307121304.AA19382@mailman.nsf.gov>
To: "F. Scott Ophof"
From: "Ravin Asar"
Cc: LSTSRV-L@UGA.cc.uga.edu, comp-mail-misc@CS.UTexas.edu,
ListNix@Grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: How to recognize mail from an MLM
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sun, 11 Jul 93 13:49:22 -0400.
<930711.134922-0400@MReXX-0.18>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 93 09:04:37 EDT
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
The message I received from "F. Scott Ophof" said:
...
>
> But if Internet mail contains addresses like or
> in the "Sender:" header to indicate the item comes
> from an MLM, that to me doesn't ensure that those addresses will
> consistently reflect the relevant mailing list. In other words, if
> the "Sender:"-addr is:
> or
> will the following ALWAYS be true?
>
> or could it also be:
>
> or worse yet:
>
>
> And besides and , are there any other
> such words that have the same ("guaranteed") behaviour?
I see a number of people have responded to your question, and most
seem to be on the mark. However (and you probably know this already)
the use of prefixes "owner-" or suffix "-request" are really
implementation-dependant. I know that the mail software I run
(sendmail) looks for and "carbon-copies" to an "owner-" address when
bouncing list-related mail.
Our older machine which ran MMDF looked for a "-request" address
instead.
I would imagine that list maintainers would use a combination of
"From:", "Reply-To:" and "Errors-To:" headers to ensure that postings
to the list are replyable in a consistent manner. That way the burden
of reliability rests with the maintainer rather than a list user.
>
> Recently I've seen items from some "Revised LISTSERV"s which have
> "X-List:" headers, and that header-line has up to now consistently
> displayed the relevant and correct list-address itself.
> Do I sense an intention to use (and advertise using) that header for
> that SINGLE purpose? If so, how does one ensure that that header
> will only be used for THAT purpose?
I've paraphrased a relevant portion of RFC 822 which explains the
use of "X-" prefixed fields.
. 4.7.4. EXTENSION-FIELD
.
. A limited number of common fields have been defined in
. this document. As network mail requirements dictate, addi-
. tional fields may be standardized. To provide user-defined
. fields with a measure of safety, in name selection, such
. extension-fields will never have names that begin with the
. string "X-".
.
. Names of Extension-fields are registered with the Network
. Information Center, SRI International, Menlo Park, California.
.
.
. 4.7.5. USER-DEFINED-FIELD
.
. Individual users of network mail are free to define and
. use additional header fields. Such fields must have names
. which are not already used in the current specification or in
. any definitions of extension-fields, and the overall syntax of
. these user-defined-fields must conform to this specification's
. rules for delimiting and folding fields. Due to the
. extension-field publishing process, the name of a user-
. defined-field may be pre-empted
.
. Note: The prefatory string "X-" will never be used in the
. names of Extension-fields. This provides user-defined
. fields with a protected set of names.
I've seen various forms of "X-" addresses, none of which are really
"standard" (like X-List and X-Mailing-List). They may be in (very)
common use, but they don't appear to be guaranteed to exist in the
future.
>
> Regards.
> $$\
-Ravin
__________________________________________________________________
Ravin Asar | National Science Foundation
| 1800 G St. NW #440
| Washington, DC 20550
Official: postmaster@nsf.gov | Phone: (202) 357-5934
Personal: rasar@nsf.gov | Fax: (202) 357-7663
__________________________________|_______________________________
IMHO
From List-Managers-Owner Mon Jul 12 23:06:16 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA27731; Mon, 12 Jul 93 23:06:16 GMT
Received: from rata.vuw.ac.nz by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA27724; Mon, 12 Jul 93 16:05:56 PDT
Received: by rata.vuw.ac.nz id AA05591
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for List-Managers@greatcircle.com); Tue, 13 Jul 1993 11:08:06 +1200
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 11:08:06 +1200
Message-Id: <199307122308.AA05591@rata.vuw.ac.nz>
From: Tony Martindale
To: berg@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de
Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: Stephen R. van den Berg's message of Mon, 12 Jul 1993 12:12:31 +0200 <9307121012.AA11460@hathi>
Subject: How to recognize mail from an MLM
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
From: berg@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Stephen R. van den Berg)
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 12:12:31 +0200
"F. Scott Ophof" wrote:
>Which single header in an email item consistently informs the reader
>(or software) that the item is from a mailing list,
> And in such a way that it
>is clearly NOT mail from a *person*.
The answer to this question is easy: if there is a field in the header that
says:
Precendence: list
then it is from a mailinglist, and NEVER from a person.
Say what? Where is this defined as a standard (proposed, de facto or
otherwise)? This is not in RFC 822 or 1123, I'm amazed that you can
be so definite. Overloading the "Precendence" field with additional
meaning does not strike me as the way to go about things. The
Extension-Field or User-Defined-Field is the better approach IMHO.
There is a small
catch here: not all lists set this field correctly (yet).
There is a bigger catch: not all mailers are configured to do
sensible things with this field. At best the Precendence field is a
UNIXism/sendmailism. There have been good postings in the past to
List-Mangagers about the Precendence field, so I won't rave.
I gather, from this list, that there are a number of
groups/committees looking at standards/RFC's for mailing list
management. Can anyone give a report on where the current thinking is
at regarding this and other issues?
---
Tony Martindale Computing Services Centre,
phone: +64 4 495 5051 Victoria University of Wellington,
fax: +64 4 471 5386 P.O. Box 600, Wellington, NEW ZEALAND.
From List-Managers-Owner Tue Jul 13 00:14:13 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA27843; Tue, 13 Jul 93 00:14:13 GMT
Received: from cruskit.aarnet.edu.au by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA27836; Mon, 12 Jul 93 17:13:56 PDT
Received: from localhost.aarnet.edu.au by cruskit.aarnet.edu.au with SMTP id AA12068
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 13 Jul 1993 10:15:48 +1000
From: Andy Linton
To: Tony Martindale
Cc: berg@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: How to recognize mail from an MLM
X-Organization: AARNet, GPO Box 1142, Canberra, ACT 2601, AUSTRALIA
X-Phone: +61 6 249 2874
Precendence: list
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 10:15:45 +1000
Message-Id: <12067.742522545@cruskit.aarnet.edu.au>
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
In your message dated Tue, 13 Jul 1993 11:08:06 +1200, you write:
>
> From: berg@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Stephen R. van den Berg)
> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 12:12:31 +0200
>
> "F. Scott Ophof" wrote:
> >Which single header in an email item consistently informs the reader
> >(or software) that the item is from a mailing list,
> > And in such a way that it
> >is clearly NOT mail from a *person*.
>
> The answer to this question is easy: if there is a field in the header that
> says:
> Precendence: list
>
> then it is from a mailinglist, and NEVER from a person.
>
> Say what? Where is this defined as a standard (proposed, de facto or
> otherwise)? This is not in RFC 822 or 1123, I'm amazed that you can
> be so definite. Overloading the "Precendence" field with additional
> meaning does not strike me as the way to go about things. The
> Extension-Field or User-Defined-Field is the better approach IMHO.
>
I agree with Tony - there's no absolutes here at all. We need a set of
standard headers for lists and for SMTP mail details of envelope construction.
There isn't such a standard yet and to go around saying that that there is or
wishing that a particular header was part of a standard doesn't help.
From List-Managers-Owner Tue Jul 13 00:24:59 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA27866; Tue, 13 Jul 93 00:24:59 GMT
Received: from CS.UWindsor.Ca (csgate.lamf.uwindsor.ca) by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA27859; Mon, 12 Jul 93 17:24:47 PDT
Received: by CS.UWindsor.Ca (4.1/SMI-DDN)
id AA04125; Mon, 12 Jul 93 20:25:57 EDT
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 16:44:49 -0400
From: "F. Scott Ophof"
Subject: Re: How to recognize mail from an MLM
Message-Id: <930712.164449-0400@MReXX-0.18>
To:
To:
To:
To:
To:
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Up to now I've only seen replies which come down to this:
There's no SINGLE header which is used by ALL MLMs to inform the
reader that the item is from "Name of list ".
Note that the addr format (FQDN, BITnet addr, bang-type, X.400, or
whatever) is irrelevant.
If addresses like , , or
(gasp!) (as a/the MLM at GreatCircle.com does)
are indeed implementation-dependant, then they too are effectively
not too useful as a general case.
I can accept that MLMs came into general use after standards like
RFC822 were proposed, with those standards not taking MLMs into
consideration. But after all these years, hasn't *any* standard
been proposed and rammed through *YET*??
To clarify (just in case), I'm NOT interested in the MLM-side of the
matter, only that the READER (human/software) can identify without
ambiguity the ==> LIST-ADDRESS <== (plus optionally its name).
For some time I thought that "Newsgroups: groupname[s]" meant "you
are reading an item that was posted as-is to 'groupname[s]'". But
now I see that people use that header to indicate that they copied
the item from 'groupname[s]', quote (parts of) it, and send it off
via email as private replies.
So using that header as an analogy/example of what I mean is out...
Most (not all) list hosted by a "Revised LISTSERV" have both the
"Sender:" and "Reply-To:" set to the list-address, thus making
identification (and replying) easy.
The exception is when list-owner/subscribers have indicated that
a "Reply-To:" set by the poster should be respected (or even always
the poster's addr).
Even in that case the address in the (in the formal sense mis-used)
"Sender:" header is a clear indicator for the reader/software.
Does anyone have any info on RFCs which have proposed a header for
what I'm asking?
If there ain't none, then I'd like to propose that:
Listname: Name of List
be used for this purpose, and for no other purpose. And that this
header and its purpose be registered, etc.
I don't care whether it would be "Listname:" or "List-Name:", but
not some "X-whatever:", please. Ie. I retract my proposal to use
"X-List:".
On Mon, 12 Jul 93 09:04:37 EDT Ravin Asar said on List-Manager:
>...
>I would imagine that list maintainers would use a combination of
>"From:", "Reply-To:" and "Errors-To:" headers to ensure that postings
>to the list are replyable in a consistent manner. That way the burden
>of reliability rests with the maintainer rather than a list user.
You sent me three items (carbon-copy bodies, two private, one to
List-Managers), none of which had a header identifying the exact
list-address to reply to.
On Mon, 12 Jul 1993 12:12:31 +0200 Stephen R. van den Berg said on List-Managers:
..["Precendence: list" means it's from A list]..
This still does not identify the , as
you call it (clearest definition I've seen yet btw!).
To need TWO headers for one piece of data seems imho overkill.
Or is:
Precendence: group
a valid form to indicate it's a newsgroup item? Are there other
values which are valid here?
On 11 Jul 1993 22:42:16 GMT Eric Thomas said on LSTSRV-L:
>On Sun, 11 Jul 1993 13:49:22 -0400 F. Scott Ophof said:
>>Recently I've seen items from some "Revised LISTSERV"s which have
>>"X-List:" headers, and that header-line has up to now consistently
>>displayed the relevant and correct list-address itself.
>These are not from LISTSERV. At any rate I don't think this is a good
>solution, one has to think of mail sent to multiple lists, resent from
>list X to list Y, and so on.
Hmm.. I was quite sure I saw them (Don't know where, Don't know
when".. as the song goes). But I'll snag a couple, double-check,
and report back.
Regards.
$$\
From List-Managers-Owner Tue Jul 13 02:36:51 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA28117; Tue, 13 Jul 93 02:36:51 GMT
Received: from mailman.nsf.gov by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA28110; Mon, 12 Jul 93 19:36:39 PDT
Received: from localhost by mailman.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA12321
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Mon, 12 Jul 1993 22:40:52 -0400
Message-Id: <199307130240.AA12321@mailman.nsf.gov>
To: "F. Scott Ophof"
From: "Ravin Asar"
Cc: LSTSRV-L@UGA.cc.uga.edu, comp-mail-misc@CS.UTexas.edu,
List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, ListNix@Grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr,
Unix-Listserv@stormking.com
Reply-To: Come on MLMs - fill this in
Subject: Re: How to recognize mail from an MLM
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 12 Jul 93 16:44:49 -0400.
<930712.164449-0400@MReXX-0.18>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 93 22:40:52 EDT
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
The message I received from "F. Scott Ophof" said:
...
> If addresses like , , or
> (gasp!) (as a/the MLM at GreatCircle.com does)
> are indeed implementation-dependant, then they too are effectively
> not too useful as a general case.
It occurred to me that none of the above should really be used as
indicators of MLM-generated mail for the simple reason that they
occur on the RHS of a field name.
>
> I can accept that MLMs came into general use after standards like
> RFC822 were proposed, with those standards not taking MLMs into
> consideration. But after all these years, hasn't *any* standard
> been proposed and rammed through *YET*??
>
> If there ain't none, then I'd like to propose that:
> Listname: Name of List
> be used for this purpose, and for no other purpose. And that this
> header and its purpose be registered, etc.
Yes, that does seem sensible to have, especially considering that
X-List* fields have been floating around for a while now, waiting to
be "adopted". A small semantic point here, though: just as one
doesn't use a "Sendername:", "Subjectmatter:" or a "Fromname:" field,
it would appear to be more appropriate and consistent (imho) to name
the field "List:".
> I don't care whether it would be "Listname:" or "List-Name:", but
> not some "X-whatever:", please. Ie. I retract my proposal to use
> "X-List:".
>
I wonder if the people who started using the X-List* fields (I'm a
little short on history here) have anything in the works for
formalizing a definitive field now. The SRI-NIC was listed in
RFC822 as the keeper of registered field names. This might now be
a function of rs.internic.net.
>
> Or is:
> Precendence: group
> a valid form to indicate it's a newsgroup item? Are there other
> values which are valid here?
>
"Precedence:" as I know it is a definite sendmail-ism, and is
site-dependant. The RHS of this field can be any text defined by the
email administrator, and is translated by sendmail into a number (via
the config file). This is then used by sendmail to determine whether
to favor or penalize the delivery of this message relative to the
current system load.
I most certainly wouldn't rely on it as an indicator of MLM-generated
mail.
>
> On 11 Jul 1993 22:42:16 GMT Eric Thomas said on LSTSRV-L:
> >On Sun, 11 Jul 1993 13:49:22 -0400 F. Scott Ophof said:
> >>Recently I've seen items from some "Revised LISTSERV"s which have
> >>"X-List:" headers, and that header-line has up to now consistently
> >>displayed the relevant and correct list-address itself.
> >These are not from LISTSERV. At any rate I don't think this is a good
> >solution, one has to think of mail sent to multiple lists, resent from
> >list X to list Y, and so on.
Wouldn't mail sent to multiple lists be taken care of by their respective
MLMs ? And if a message was resent from list X to list Y, wouldn't it
now be deemed to originate from list Y's MLM (and contain headers
appropriate to list Y) ?.... just asking.
The history of the message could, of course, be preserved through the use
of the "Resent-" prefix defined in RFC822 (Section 4.2).
...
> Regards.
> $$\
__________________________________________________________________
Ravin Asar | National Science Foundation
System Manager: Unix Systems | 1800 G St. NW #440
| Washington, DC 20550
Official: postmaster@nsf.gov | Phone: (202) 357-5934
Personal: rasar@nsf.gov | Fax: (202) 357-7663
__________________________________|_______________________________
As always, IMHO.
From List-Managers-Owner Tue Jul 13 04:51:47 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA28318; Tue, 13 Jul 93 04:51:47 GMT
Received: from CS.UWindsor.Ca (csgate.lamf.uwindsor.ca) by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA28311; Mon, 12 Jul 93 21:51:40 PDT
Received: by CS.UWindsor.Ca (4.1/SMI-DDN)
id AA07172; Tue, 13 Jul 93 00:53:28 EDT
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 21:36:01 -0400
From: "F. Scott Ophof"
Subject: Re: How to recognize mail from an MLM
Message-Id: <930712.213601-0400@MReXX-0.18>
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 13 Jul 1993 10:15:45 +1000
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Tue, 13 Jul 1993 10:15:45 +1000 Andy Linton said:
>In your message dated Tue, 13 Jul 1993 11:08:06 +1200, you write:
^^^^ ^^^
Does that refer to Tony Martindale?
>> From: berg@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Stephen R. van den Berg)
>> The answer to this question is easy: if there is a field in the header that
>> says:
>> Precendence: list
^
How did that "n" creep in there? Typo? Or is my dictionary so old
that it doesn't list anything related to this word?
Regards.
$$\
From List-Managers-Owner Tue Jul 13 07:27:27 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA28596; Tue, 13 Jul 93 07:27:27 GMT
Received: from cruskit.aarnet.edu.au by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA28589; Tue, 13 Jul 93 00:26:02 PDT
Received: from localhost.aarnet.edu.au by cruskit.aarnet.edu.au with SMTP id AA12617
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 13 Jul 1993 17:28:05 +1000
From: Andy Linton
To: "F. Scott Ophof"
Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: How to recognize mail from an MLM
X-Organization: AARNet, GPO Box 1142, Canberra, ACT 2601, AUSTRALIA
X-Phone: +61 6 249 2874
Precendence: list
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 17:28:04 +1000
Message-Id: <12616.742548484@cruskit.aarnet.edu.au>
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
In your message dated Mon, 12 Jul 1993 21:36:01 -0400, you write:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 1993 10:15:45 +1000 Andy Linton said:
> >In your message dated Tue, 13 Jul 1993 11:08:06 +1200, you write:
> ^^^^ ^^^
> Does that refer to Tony Martindale?
My message was addressed to Tony and CCed to the list - it seems reasonable to
say 'you said'.
>
> >> From: berg@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Stephen R. van den Berg)
> >> The answer to this question is easy: if there is a field in the header that
> >> says:
> >> Precendence: list
> ^
> How did that "n" creep in there? Typo? Or is my dictionary so old
> that it doesn't list anything related to this word?
Stephen's original post had it like that. Note the headers of this mail have
it too - sort of blows his theory away. No elaborate tricks played to do it
either.
I agree wholeheartedly that we need a standard in this area - has anyone else
looked at the RFP put out by CREN recently:
Draft Request for Proposals
for a
Mailing-List Software Package
Including Changes Proposed May 4, 1993
It's much too large to post here:
1.12 Copies of this RFP are available, via anonymous ftp or Gopher,
from the Unix machine info.cren.net, in the directory /cren-rfp, as the
files ip-listserv.txt, ip-listserv.rtf, and ip-listserv.ps, for plain-
text, RTF interchange format, and PostScript versions, respectively.
The RFP is also available from listserv@bitnic.educom.edu
(LISTSERV@BITNIC.BITNET) as the file LISTMGT RFP-TXT or LISTMGT RFP-RTF.
Comments and questions about this RFP should be directed to the
moderated LISTSERV list crenlist@bitnic.educom.edu; interested parties
should self-subscribe to that list through listserv@bitnic.educom.edu.
I wonder how many of the list managers around have this level of detail in
their specs - it runs to 1200 lines. Appendix A is pertinent to this
discussion.
From List-Managers-Owner Tue Jul 13 09:52:58 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA28882; Tue, 13 Jul 93 09:52:58 GMT
Received: from CS.UWindsor.Ca (csgate.lamf.uwindsor.ca) by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA28875; Tue, 13 Jul 93 02:52:47 PDT
Received: by CS.UWindsor.Ca (4.1/SMI-DDN)
id AA08961; Tue, 13 Jul 93 05:55:01 EDT
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 04:51:22 -0400
From: "F. Scott Ophof"
Subject: Re: How to recognize mail from an MLM
Message-Id: <930713.045122-0400@MReXX-0.18>
To:
To:
To:
To:
To:
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 12 Jul 93 22:40:52 EDT
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
I received 3 copies of the body of this item. The headers were
slightly different, and only in one case could I to some extent
identify the list-address using what I feel are normal/obvious
headers.
Here follow all three sets, though I've taken the liberty of
leaving in only those headers which are relevant to an item.
(I couldn't care less about "Received:", "X-...:", "Lines:",
"Phone:", etc. Note that "Prece[n]dence:" doesn't tell me anything,
so I've instructed my mailreader to delete it also.
Note also that in some cases the address-casing in the "Cc:" line
is not the same as in the other(s).
| Message-Id: <199307130240.AA12321@mailman.nsf.gov>
| To: "F. Scott Ophof"
| From: "Ravin Asar"
| Cc: LSTSRV-L@UGA.cc.uga.edu, comp-mail-misc@CS.UTexas.edu,
| List-Managers@greatcircle.com, ListNix@grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr,
| Unix-Listserv@stormking.com
| Subject: Re: How to recognize mail from an MLM
| In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 12 Jul 93 16:44:49 -0400.
| <930712.164449-0400@MReXX-0.18>
| Date: Mon, 12 Jul 93 22:40:52 EDT
| Sender: rasar@nsf.gov
| Reply-To: Come on MLMs - fill this in
| Message-Id: <199307130240.AA12321@mailman.nsf.gov>
| To: "F. Scott Ophof"
| From: "Ravin Asar"
| Cc: LSTSRV-L@UGA.cc.uga.edu, comp-mail-misc@CS.UTexas.edu,
| List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, ListNix@Grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr,
| Unix-Listserv@stormking.com
| Reply-To: Come on MLMs - fill this in
| Subject: Re: How to recognize mail from an MLM
| In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 12 Jul 93 16:44:49 -0400.
| <930712.164449-0400@MReXX-0.18>
| Date: Mon, 12 Jul 93 22:40:52 EDT
| Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
| Message-Id: <199307130240.AA12321@mailman.nsf.gov>
| To: "F. Scott Ophof"
| From: "Ravin Asar"
| Cc: LSTSRV-L@UGA.cc.uga.edu, comp-mail-misc@CS.UTexas.edu,
| List-Managers@greatcircle.com, ListNix@Grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr,
| Unix-Listserv@stormking.com
| Reply-To: Come on MLMs - fill this in
| Subject: Re: How to recognize mail from an MLM
| In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 12 Jul 93 16:44:49 -0400.
| <930712.164449-0400@MReXX-0.18>
| Date: Mon, 12 Jul 93 22:40:52 EDT
| Sender: rasar@nsf.gov
The ONLY item which has a header displaying anything which could
imply it's coming from a list is the second one, and even there it's
of the variety.
All three I found in my mailbox, and none show the always clearly
recognizable "Revised LISTSERV" setup, so none were from LSTSRV-L or
comp.mail.misc.
The second one says in the "Sender:" line,
so it's probably from .
So which of the others comes from ListNix, which from Unix-Listserv?
Or did you send me one directly, Ravin? In other words, could I be
missing one?
And no, Ravin, none of these Unix MLMs seems to have the "Reply-To:"
set to the equiv. of "ignore poster, use list-addr-only". I don't
even think it's possible in those MLMs.
On Mon, 12 Jul 93 22:40:52 EDT Ravin Asar said:
>The message I received from "F. Scott Ophof" said:
>...
>> If addresses like , , or
>> (gasp!) (as a/the MLM at GreatCircle.com does)
>> are indeed implementation-dependant, then they too are effectively
>> not too useful as a general case.
>It occurred to me that none of the above should really be used as
>indicators of MLM-generated mail for the simple reason that they
>occur on the RHS of a field name.
Come again? You mean the should be on the
LEFT-hand side, ie. it should be the field-NAME? I misunderstand
you, right?
>> If there ain't none, then I'd like to propose that:
>> Listname: Name of List
>> be used for this purpose, and for no other purpose. And that this
>> header and its purpose be registered, etc.
>Yes, that does seem sensible to have, especially considering that
>X-List* fields have been floating around for a while now, waiting to
>be "adopted". A small semantic point here, though: just as one
>doesn't use a "Sendername:", "Subjectmatter:" or a "Fromname:" field,
>it would appear to be more appropriate and consistent (imho) to name
>the field "List:".
Agreed re semantics. From the same point of view I'd almost suggest
to request that "Newsgroup:" be shortened to simply "News:". ;-)
>I wonder if the people who started using the X-List* fields (I'm a
>little short on history here) have anything in the works for
>formalizing a definitive field now. The SRI-NIC was listed in
>RFC822 as the keeper of registered field names. This might now be
>a function of rs.internic.net.
My experience with SRI-NIC (and now its successor) is less than
phenomenal, so anyone who knows the magic incantations needed to
extract info from that source I beg to do so and share that info
with us.
Regards.
$$\
From List-Managers-Owner Tue Jul 13 17:33:54 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA29612; Tue, 13 Jul 93 17:33:54 GMT
Received: from sally.informatik.rwth-aachen.de ([137.226.112.172]) by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA29605; Tue, 13 Jul 93 10:32:28 PDT
Received: from messua (messua.Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE) by sally.informatik.rwth-aachen.de
(4.1/sally-2) id AA03874; Tue, 13 Jul 93 19:20:59 +0200
Received: by messua (4.1/POOL.3)
id AA25052; Tue, 13 Jul 93 19:20:57 +0200
Message-Id: <9307131720.AA25052@messua>
From: berg@pool.Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE (Stephen R. van den Berg)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 19:20:56 +0200
In-Reply-To: "F. Scott Ophof"'s message as of 1993 Jul 12 Mon 21:36.
<930712.213601-0400@MReXX-0.18>
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: How to recognize mail from an MLM
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
"F. Scott Ophof" wrote:
>>Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
>>> Precendence: list
> ^
>How did that "n" creep in there? Typo? Or is my dictionary so old
>that it doesn't list anything related to this word?
Sorry for the confusion, slip of the finger I guess.
--
Sincerely, berg@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de
Stephen R. van den Berg (AKA BuGless). berg@physik.tu-muenchen.de
"I have a *cunning* plan!"
From List-Managers-Owner Wed Jul 14 17:45:33 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA02009; Wed, 14 Jul 93 17:45:33 GMT
Received: from CS.UWindsor.Ca ([137.207.192.3]) by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA02002; Wed, 14 Jul 93 10:45:25 PDT
Received: by CS.UWindsor.Ca (4.1/SMI-DDN)
id AA02145; Wed, 14 Jul 93 13:15:32 EDT
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 02:14:10 -0400
From: "F. Scott Ophof"
Subject: Re: The term "Unix-Listserv"
Message-Id: <930714.021410-0400@MReXX-0.18>
To:
To:
To:
To:
To:
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Tue, 13 Jul 93 08:23 EDT Duane Weaver said in a private reply the
following, which he gave me permission to post for him:
| The Unix version called LISTSERVER is NOT, I repeat NOT a
| full implementation of the Revised LISTSERV as known on
| Bitnet.
|
| I can say that with experience. I used to manage a Revised LISTSERV.
| We are now running the unix LISTSERVER.
|
| LISTSERVER is a unixfied version of what the author thinks LISTSERV
| does. I understand it is writtin in C. A student worker here said
| the code is poorly written. Things do work differently.
| The mail headers of mail from LISTSERVER are different.
|
| There are a few features that only recently became available in
| the Revised LISTSERV.
|
| LISTSERVER is also not as robust as the Revised LISTSERV. IT
| appears that processing a list with slightly over 400 subscribers
| puts a strain on the server.
|
| Documentation is typical of unix software; in my opinion, piss poor.
|
| Duane
One comment:
I've heard Duane's comment re documentation (or its near equiv.)
uttered quite often by others.
A partial clarification is that people not used to the Unix mindset
have difficulty reading such documentation, and understanding it
costs a *lot* of effort.
One must constantly think in symbolic and hierarchical terms if one
is to make ones peace with the Unix mindset. Such people exist,
that is obvious (the experts/gurus).
Many of these however don't seem to (want to) understand that not
all people are like that, or even wish to be so.
Request:
Would those responsible for past/present/future documentation please
consider the plight of non-experts, and (re)write it looking through
the eyes of those confused new users?
Regards, and thanks in advance.
$$\ F. Scott Ophof
From List-Managers-Owner Wed Jul 14 19:30:52 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA02178; Wed, 14 Jul 93 19:30:52 GMT
Received: from note2.nsf.gov by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA02171; Wed, 14 Jul 93 12:30:42 PDT
Received: from z.nsf.gov by Note2.nsf.gov id aa16667; 14 Jul 93 14:21 EDT
Received: by z.nsf.gov (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA09902; Wed, 14 Jul 93 14:25:02 EDT
Message-Id: <9307141825.AA09902@z.nsf.gov>
From: "Michael H. Morse"
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 14:25:01 EDT
In-Reply-To: "F. Scott Ophof"
"Re: The term "Unix-Listserv"" (Jul 14, 2:14am)
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.1 5/02/90)
To: "F. Scott Ophof" , LSTSRV-L@uga.cc.uga.edu,
comp-mail-misc@cs.utexas.edu, Unix-Listserv@stormking.com,
List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, ListNix@grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr
Mmdf-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at Note2.nsf.gov
Subject: Re: The term "Unix-Listserv"
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
> | We are now running the unix LISTSERVER.
> |
> | LISTSERVER is a unixfied version of what the author thinks LISTSERV
> | does. I understand it is writtin in C. A student worker here said
> | the code is poorly written. Things do work differently.
> | The mail headers of mail from LISTSERVER are different.
> |
> | LISTSERVER is also not as robust as the Revised LISTSERV. IT
> | appears that processing a list with slightly over 400 subscribers
> | puts a strain on the server.
> |
> | Documentation is typical of unix software; in my opinion, piss poor.
Whoa!!! Talk about biting the hand that feeds you! How much did you
pay for Tasos' software? Who held you down and made you use it?
Tasos has spent a *lot* of time writing, documenting, and, yes,
*supporting* this software. He lets you use it at no cost. He is
flamed regularly by BITNET and Internet bigots because he tried to find
some common ground between them. I don't know him personally, but I
assume he puts up with it because he is a decent citizen of the net,
one who wants to put into the net more than he extracts. He has done
his homework and talked to Eric Thomas about the use of the term
"listserv". He is very open to suggestions for improvement.
This has gone on long enough. Please go away, and come back when you
have something to contribute.
--Mike
From List-Managers-Owner Wed Jul 14 20:34:26 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA02275; Wed, 14 Jul 93 20:34:26 GMT
Received: from cs-mail.bu.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA02268; Wed, 14 Jul 93 13:34:15 PDT
Received: from CS.BU.EDU by cs-mail.bu.edu (5.61+++/Spike-2.1)
id AA03682; Wed, 14 Jul 93 16:37:05 -0400
From: tasos@cs-mail.bu.edu (Anastasios Kotsikonas)
Received: by cs.bu.edu (5.61+++/Spike-2.1)
id AA27521; Wed, 14 Jul 93 16:36:58 -0400
Message-Id: <9307142036.AA27521@cs.bu.edu>
Subject: Re: The term "Unix-Listserv"
To: mmorse@z.nsf.gov (Michael H. Morse)
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 16:36:57 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: Ophof@cs.uwindsor.ca, LSTSRV-L@uga.cc.uga.edu,
comp-mail-misc@cs.utexas.edu, Unix-Listserv@stormking.com,
List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, ListNix@grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr
In-Reply-To: <9307141825.AA09902@z.nsf.gov> from "Michael H. Morse" at Jul 14, 93 02:25:01 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL20]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1994
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
>
>
> > | We are now running the unix LISTSERVER.
> > |
> > | LISTSERVER is a unixfied version of what the author thinks LISTSERV
> > | does. I understand it is writtin in C. A student worker here said
> > | the code is poorly written. Things do work differently.
> > | The mail headers of mail from LISTSERVER are different.
> > |
> > | LISTSERVER is also not as robust as the Revised LISTSERV. IT
> > | appears that processing a list with slightly over 400 subscribers
> > | puts a strain on the server.
> > |
> > | Documentation is typical of unix software; in my opinion, piss poor.
>
> Whoa!!! Talk about biting the hand that feeds you! How much did you
> pay for Tasos' software? Who held you down and made you use it?
>
> Tasos has spent a *lot* of time writing, documenting, and, yes,
> *supporting* this software. He lets you use it at no cost. He is
> flamed regularly by BITNET and Internet bigots because he tried to find
> some common ground between them. I don't know him personally, but I
> assume he puts up with it because he is a decent citizen of the net,
> one who wants to put into the net more than he extracts. He has done
> his homework and talked to Eric Thomas about the use of the term
> "listserv". He is very open to suggestions for improvement.
Let me just say that I put up with it because I ignore ... nonsense, to put it
mildly. I accept criticism from people I can communicate with, and if some
student thinks the code is poor and the doc "piss" poor, or does not know how
to tweak the system or use UNIX utilities to reduce the load well, who cares
after all.
People who do not know what they are talking about are only hurting themselves.
Flames have NEVER forced me to take a step back, and never will. As I
said before, talk is cheap and I have better things to do. I do invite and
encourage constructive criticism, but totally ignore people and opinions that
exhibit an attitude problem, or strike me as childish.
Regards,
Tasos
From List-Managers-Owner Wed Jul 14 21:14:29 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA02329; Wed, 14 Jul 93 21:14:29 GMT
Received: from d.ecc.engr.uky.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA02322; Wed, 14 Jul 93 14:14:20 PDT
Received: from s.ecc.engr.uky.edu by d.ecc.engr.uky.edu (5.59/25-eef)
id AA17065; Wed, 14 Jul 93 16:44:59 EDT
Received: by s.ecc.engr.uky.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA12502; Wed, 14 Jul 93 16:58:38 EDT
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 93 16:58:38 EDT
From: morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Message-Id: <9307142058.AA12502@s.ecc.engr.uky.edu>
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: all I can stand of this prattle
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Now that he's vented his spleen, I'm going to vent mine.
Our buddy wrote:
>LISTSERVER is a unixfied version of what the author thinks LISTSERV
>does. I understand it is writtin in C. A student worker here said
>the code is poorly written.
Flaming code that you've (apparently) never examined and (apparently)
couldn't understand is as useless an exercise as I've seen. I'd sug-
gest that you put that nice young "student worker" right to work on
writing your LISTSERV clone for you. It can't be that hard, right?
After all, Eric's only been working on LISTSERV for a decade or so;
I seem to remember seeing LISTSERV way back in 1982, but it could be
even older. Any halfway talented Unix programmer should be able to
knock out a clone of a decade's work in nothing flat, right?
The *classic* characteristic of PD software in the Unix world is
a simple one -- GROUP EFFORT. I know of very few major packages
that have not involved dozens, even hundreds, of people. Every-
one takes the time and effort to help out, testing software on
their particular installations and providing patches/workarounds
for everyone. Do you think that packages like gnuplot, mush, elm,
perl and IDA sendmail just appeared in an FTP archive one day?
If you think that something is inadequate, there are several options
available to you. Patch it to work on your systems. Rewrite those
portions that you find "poorly written." Come up with a manual on
your own. Send your fixes/upgrades/changes to the author, so they
can share your work with the rest of us. Heck, most of us have done
it; in the last year or so, I've ported (or assisted in the porting
of) over a dozen packages to various systems. It's called "making a
contribution" or "giving something back." Obviously, these are con-
cepts alien to you.
Whining about it on every forum you can find (how many lists did this
message hit? 4 + a Usenet newsgroup? ) doesn't achieve a single thing.
>LISTSERVER is also not as robust as the Revised LISTSERV. IT
>appears that processing a list with slightly over 400 subscribers
>puts a strain on the server.
Did you stop to think that this *might* just be a limitation of
the hardware, instead of the software? There's a big difference
between an IBM 3090 running LISTSERV and a Sun SPARCStation run-
ning Tasos' code (or Majordomo, or any other MLM).
Did you stop to think that LISTSERV has been hand-tuned for a
specific set of architectures, while Majordomo, Listserver and
other Unix MLMs span a huge segment of the Unix spectrum? (That
is NOT intended as any sort of slam on Eric -- LISTSERV is a great
piece of work)
"We got it for free, but it doesn't do *exactly* what
we want! It isn't as fast as the other thing we used!
It's got the wrong name! This guy over here says it's
poorly written! Waaaaahhhhhh! Waaaaaaaaahhhhhh!"
Give it a rest. At the very least, drop list-managers from your
Email Wheel O'Diatribe; we're here to talk about mailing list
management, not to hear your worthless mewling.
I think I'm going to be implementing that email killfile with
procmail...........that's another tool developed by dozens of
people working together......
Feeling *much* better now,
--Wes
From List-Managers-Owner Wed Jul 14 21:40:27 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA02415; Wed, 14 Jul 93 21:40:27 GMT
Received: from apple.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA02408; Wed, 14 Jul 93 14:40:21 PDT
Received: by apple.com (5.61/22-Jun-1993-eef)
id AA07529; Wed, 14 Jul 93 14:43:21 -0700
for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 93 14:43:21 -0700
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Message-Id: <9307142143.AA07529@apple.com>
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, morgan@engr.uky.edu
Subject: Re: all I can stand of this prattle
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Children,
if you don't have anything better to do, why don't you head down to Iowa and
volunteer some of this time you're spending flaming each other to hauling
sandbags. Maybe that'll help put the importance of this argument back into
some kind of perspective.
(VERY tired of listening to the babbling).
From List-Managers-Owner Wed Jul 14 17:16:39 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA02631; Wed, 14 Jul 93 23:55:59 GMT
Received: from relay2.UU.NET by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA02614; Wed, 14 Jul 93 16:55:42 PDT
Received: from spool.uu.net (via LOCALHOST) by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP
(5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA28255; Wed, 14 Jul 93 19:58:23 -0400
Received: from telesoft.UUCP by spool.uu.net with UUCP/RMAIL
(queueing-rmail) id 195627.17715; Wed, 14 Jul 1993 19:56:27 EDT
Received: from lone.alsys.com by flash.alsys.com (4.1/TS-1.2a)
id AA13563; Wed, 14 Jul 93 16:34:18 PDT
Message-Id: <9307142334.AA13563@flash.alsys.com>
Received: by lone.alsys.com (4.1/TS-1.2)
id AA22479; Wed, 14 Jul 93 16:34:17 PDT
From: mnejat@lone.alsys.com
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 16:34:16 PDT
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.2 4/12/91)
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: X.400 and Anastasios listserver.
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Can they work together?
Also, what is the most common listserver software used with unix boxes.
--Mehregan
From List-Managers-Owner Wed Jul 14 17:46:39 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA02633; Wed, 14 Jul 93 23:56:01 GMT
Received: from CS.UWindsor.Ca (csgate.lamf.uwindsor.ca) by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA02615; Wed, 14 Jul 93 16:55:44 PDT
Received: by CS.UWindsor.Ca (4.1/SMI-DDN)
id AA03309; Wed, 14 Jul 93 19:57:34 EDT
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 18:07:08 -0400
From: "F. Scott Ophof"
Subject: Re: How to recognize mail from an MLM
Message-Id: <930714.180707-0400@MReXX-0.18>
To:
To:
To:
To:
To:
In-Reply-To: Your message of 13 Jul 1993 13:38:03 GMT
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 13 Jul 1993 13:38:03 GMT Chris Barnes said:
>On Mon, 12 Jul 1993 16:44:49 -0400 F. Scott Ophof said:
>> Listname: Name of List
>I totally agree with the intent, but not the implementation. *I*
>think merely refining what the Sender: and From: tags indicate would
>do it. IMHO, the Sender: tag should have the list address (if present);
>the From: tag should ALWAYS point to the real person that initiated the
>mail message.
I think you will discover in RFC 822 that "Sender:" is not the
formally correct header for this purpose. Agreed re "From:".
I've been playing around with combinations of headers (as many
others must have already) but literal & figurative headaches were
the only result.
>BTW: does anyone know of an ftp site for rfc822? I think it's high time
>I actually sat down and read the thing.....
Site: wuarchive.wustl.edu
Directory: doc/rfc/
File: rfc822.txt.Z (case-sensitive)
Regards.
$$\
From List-Managers-Owner Thu Jul 15 02:06:46 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA03995; Thu, 15 Jul 93 02:06:46 GMT
Received: from cruskit.aarnet.edu.au by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA03988; Wed, 14 Jul 93 19:06:24 PDT
Received: from localhost.aarnet.edu.au by cruskit.aarnet.edu.au with SMTP id AA14564
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Thu, 15 Jul 1993 12:08:39 +1000
From: Andy Linton
To: "F. Scott Ophof"
Cc: LSTSRV-L@uga.cc.uga.edu, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM,
ListNix@grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr, Unix-Listserv@stormking.com,
comp-mail-misc@cs.utexas.edu
Subject: Re: How to recognize mail from an MLM
X-Organization: AARNet, GPO Box 1142, Canberra, ACT 2601, AUSTRALIA
X-Phone: +61 6 249 2874
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 12:08:36 +1000
Message-Id: <14563.742702116@cruskit.aarnet.edu.au>
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
In a message dated Wed, 14 Jul 1993 18:07:08 -0400,
"F. Scott Ophof" writes:
> >BTW: does anyone know of an ftp site for rfc822? I think it's high time
> >I actually sat down and read the thing.....
>
> Site: wuarchive.wustl.edu
> Directory: doc/rfc/
> File: rfc822.txt.Z (case-sensitive)
You might want to add RFC 1123, 1425, 1426, 1427, 1428 to your list of SMTP
reading - you'll find some other tangential paths to go down in those as
well. RFC 822 doesn't give the full picture - remember that it's 11th birthday
will be next month.
From List-Managers-Owner Thu Jul 15 03:44:18 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA04189; Thu, 15 Jul 93 03:44:18 GMT
Received: from CS.UWindsor.Ca (csgate.lamf.uwindsor.ca) by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA04182; Wed, 14 Jul 93 20:43:57 PDT
Received: by CS.UWindsor.Ca (4.1/SMI-DDN)
id AA05804; Wed, 14 Jul 93 23:46:05 EDT
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 21:21:06 -0400
From: "F. Scott Ophof"
Subject: Re: all I can stand of this prattle
Message-Id: <930714.212106-0400@MReXX-0.18>
To:
To:
To:
To:
To:
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 14 Jul 93 16:58:38 EDT
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Wed, 14 Jul 93 16:58:38 EDT Wes Morgan said about Duane's posting:
>Now that he's vented his spleen, I'm going to vent mine.
>Our buddy wrote:
>>LISTSERVER is a unixfied version of what the author thinks LISTSERV
>>does. I understand it is writtin in C. A student worker here said
>>the code is poorly written.
>Flaming code that you've (apparently) never examined and (apparently)
>couldn't understand is as useless an exercise as I've seen. I'd sug-
>gest that you put that nice young "student worker" right to work on
>writing your LISTSERV clone for you. It can't be that hard, right?
Wouldn't it be better to ask Duane to ask this student worker for
more details? Maybe a thing or two could be LEARNED which might be
worth implementing in this or that MLM.
>The *classic* characteristic of PD software in the Unix world is
>a simple one -- GROUP EFFORT. I know of very few major packages
>that have not involved dozens, even hundreds, of people. Every-
>one takes the time and effort to help out, testing software on
>their particular installations and providing patches/workarounds
>for everyone. Do you think that packages like gnuplot, mush, elm,
>perl and IDA sendmail just appeared in an FTP archive one day?
This characteristic is also quite classic in the BITnet world, at
least in most stuff I've seen from '88 on.
What drives *me* up the wall is that when people make suggestions
for stuff which they think might be an improvement, and/or ask
whether it would be an improvement in general, and even when they
CLEARLY state they cannot implement it for whatever reason, the
result ON THE INTERNET is quite often that these people get flamed
from here to Arcturus (and back), are told off, or are summarily
replied to with "hack the code". Ie. INTERNET people seem to have
very long toes. Now THAT characteristic (long toes) does NOT seem
to be as general ON BITNET, in fact, quite rare in my experience.
I've seen enough postings on BITnet that are outright flames but
where the flame is ignored or joked about, with the meat of the
posting being taken into serious consideration.
I've also seen way too many VERY POLITE postings on the Internet
where the ONLY result is nasty and uncalled-for flames.
Now can we quit feeling that our precious toes are being stepped on?
Just because a product is "free" does NOT mean its lesser points
cannot be criticised. Also, contributions to products can be made
in numerous ways, one of which is pointing out certain aspects of
those products. Most of us contribute at whatever level we can.
I've seen people contribute with "only" a fanfare-trumpet-hurray
posting to some list, thanking the implementor(s) of a product!
But a "thank you for a job well done" is not a "contribution",
right? And documentation (of which user help-files & such) are of
course totally irrelevant, and one shouldn't waste any time on such
useless crap, right? Because who the hell cares what a USER thinks
of a product?! And why should one EVER take the trouble to even
consider that a USER might think differently than the implementor(s)
of some product?
My suggestion:
Pull in those toes and try to think like a USER. Just once...
If you can't, hey that's OK (nobody's perfect), talk with a GOOD
teacher, or to people at the help-desk who have a good reputation
interfacing with users (or ditto computer consultant at the CC).
They'll be glad to help you out; it's part of their work.
>Whining about it on every forum you can find (how many lists did this
>message hit? 4 + a Usenet newsgroup? ) doesn't achieve a single thing.
Duane gave me permission to post it, and *I* decided to post it
to 5 discussion centers. Some people have already responded with
positive comments and requests for suggestions and more details.
IMHO a good start towards improvements related to MLMs in general.
>>LISTSERVER is also not as robust as the Revised LISTSERV. IT
>>appears that processing a list with slightly over 400 subscribers
>>puts a strain on the server.
..[Might be more hardware- than software-related]..
>Did you stop to think that LISTSERV has been hand-tuned for a
>specific set of architectures, while Majordomo, Listserver and
>other Unix MLMs span a huge segment of the Unix spectrum? (That
>is NOT intended as any sort of slam on Eric -- LISTSERV is a great
>piece of work)
So what are we all gonna do? Sit on our halos, feel we've done our
best, stick out our long toes, and leave it up to the poor USERS to
figure out how to talk with all these differing MLMs?
Or are we going to try to figure out how to improve all these MLMs
even more?
>Feeling *much* better now,
>--Wes
Really? (grin) Or have I managed to find some toes/feet not yet
stepped on? >;->
Regards.
$$\
From List-Managers-Owner Thu Jul 15 07:46:26 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA04518; Thu, 15 Jul 93 07:46:26 GMT
Received: from ub-gate.UB.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA04511; Thu, 15 Jul 93 00:46:17 PDT
Received: from bolis.UUCP by ub-gate.UB.com (4.1/SMI-4.1[UB-1.8])
id AA12895; Thu, 15 Jul 93 00:49:11 PDT
Received: by hock.bolis.sf-bay.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #6)
id m0oGNqX-0002ywC; Thu, 15 Jul 93 00:35 PDT
Message-Id:
From: Alan Millar
Subject: Re: all I can stand of this prattle
To: Ophof@CS.UWindsor.Ca (F. Scott Ophof)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 00:35:14 -0800 (PDT)
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: <930714.212106-0400@MReXX-0.18> from "F. Scott Ophof" at Jul 14, 93 09:21:06 pm
Reply-To: Alan Millar
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1660
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Verily didst F. Scott Ophof rise up and spake thus:
> So what are we all gonna do? Sit on our halos, feel we've done our
> best, stick out our long toes, and leave it up to the poor USERS to
> figure out how to talk with all these differing MLMs?
I believe that the poor users (all of us being one at various times)
are all too easily confused by the differences among the MLMs.
And in my opinion, the very first stumbling block is "what address
do I send my subscription request to?" Send it to listserv@here,
listserver@there, mailserv@somewhere.else, and majordomo@that.other.one
Assuming that we could get consistent syntax among the MLMs,
wouldn't it help the users to have one reserved name to send
to? This seems fundamentally obvious to me; what am I missing here?
Presumably the best choice to try for some consistency would
be "listserv@whereever". How does this square with the recent
flap over intellectual property rights to the name "LISTSERV"?
(*I* am perfectly happy to tell people "I run Majordomo, send your
requests to listserv@blah.blah. You'll get a reply that
says From: Majordomo ". It is fine with me.
But will the Don't-call-it-listserv-when-it-isn't-Eric's-Revised-Listserv
people have a problem with it?)
> Or are we going to try to figure out how to improve all these MLMs
> even more?
Can't argue with that.
- Alan
---- ,,,,
Alan Millar amillar@bolis.SF-Bay.org __oo \
System Administrator =___/
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! -Wizard of Oz
From List-Managers-Owner Thu Jul 15 02:47:30 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA04725; Thu, 15 Jul 93 09:20:25 GMT
Received: from deepthought.cs.utexas.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA04716; Thu, 15 Jul 93 02:20:09 PDT
Received: from im4u.cs.utexas.edu by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP
id AA26489; Thu, 15 Jul 93 04:23:21 -0500
Received: from chinaca by im4u.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.18/uucp) with UUCP
id AA17069; Thu, 15 Jul 93 04:23:04 -0500
Received: from coldsnap.unicom.com by chinacat.unicom.com with smtp
(smail3.1.28.1) id m0oGOkq-0002ZXC; Thu, 15 Jul 93 03:33 CDT
Received: from localhost by coldsnap.unicom.com
(smail3.1.28.1) id m0oGOks-00025PC; Thu, 15 Jul 93 03:33 CDT
Message-Id:
From: chip@chinacat.unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal)
Subject: Re: all I can stand of this prattle
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 03:33:29 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To: from "Alan Millar" at Jul 15, 93 00:35:14 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 608
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
> Assuming that we could get consistent syntax among the MLMs,
> wouldn't it help the users to have one reserved name to send
> to? This seems fundamentally obvious to me; what am I missing here?
We should stick with the Internet convention of using a `-request'
address, and the local administrator should feel free to alias that
to whatever he or she feels inclined to do.
--
Chip Rosenthal 512-447-0577 | I'm going out where the lights don't shine so
Unicom Systems Development | bright. When I get back you can treat me like
| a Saturday night. -Jimmie Dale Gilmore
From List-Managers-Owner Thu Jul 15 09:52:19 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA04776; Thu, 15 Jul 93 09:52:19 GMT
Received: from livbird.liv.ac.uk by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA04769; Thu, 15 Jul 93 02:52:02 PDT
Received: from localhost.liv.ac.uk by liverbird.liverpool.ac.uk
with Local-SMTP (PP) id <03924-0@liverbird.liverpool.ac.uk>;
Thu, 15 Jul 1993 10:53:33 +0100
To: mnejat@lone.alsys.com
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: X.400 and Anastasios listserver.
In-Reply-To: The Message of "Wed, 14 Jul 93 16:34:16 PDT."
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 93 10:53:30 +0100
Message-Id: <3922.742730010@livbird.liv.ac.uk>
From: Alan Thew
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Wed, 14 Jul 1993 16:34:16 PDT mnejat@lone.alsys.com wrote:
>Can they work together?
We've had problems. X.400 mail will be converted to something resembling
RFC822 long before Listserver ever sees it but it tends to have a long
row of "------------------------------" as the first line.... listserver
junks the message.
If you mean "can listserver handle native X.400?" . The answer is no. You
need to have a X.400 MTA convert it to RFC822 (can be done) before you
stand a chamce.
--
Alan Thew
alan.thew@livbird.liv.ac.uk ...!uknet!livbird!alan.thew +44 51 794 3735
From List-Managers-Owner Thu Jul 15 10:40:36 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA04903; Thu, 15 Jul 93 10:40:36 GMT
Received: from livbird.liv.ac.uk by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA04896; Thu, 15 Jul 93 03:40:26 PDT
Received: from localhost.liv.ac.uk by liverbird.liverpool.ac.uk
with Local-SMTP (PP) id <04068-0@liverbird.liverpool.ac.uk>;
Thu, 15 Jul 1993 11:41:00 +0100
To: chip@chinacat.unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal)
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: all I can stand of this prattle
In-Reply-To: The Message of "Thu, 15 Jul 93 03:33:29 CDT."
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 93 11:40:59 +0100
Message-Id: <4066.742732859@livbird.liv.ac.uk>
From: Alan Thew
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Thu, 15 Jul 1993 03:33:29 -0500 (CDT) Chip Rosenthal wrote:
>> Assuming that we could get consistent syntax among the MLMs,
>> wouldn't it help the users to have one reserved name to send
>> to? This seems fundamentally obvious to me; what am I missing here?
>
>We should stick with the Internet convention of using a `-request'
>address, and the local administrator should feel free to alias that
>to whatever he or she feels inclined to do.
The only problem with the above is that it's a convention. BITNET software
does not use it, many sendmail based software packages tend to use the
-owners convention.
It would be useful to have an RFC (pigs will fly :-)). There are 2 issues,
one is how MLMs look to a user and what other headers MLM's use to
identify themselves to MTAs.
--
Alan Thew
alan.thew@livbird.liv.ac.uk ...!uknet!livbird!alan.thew +44 51 794 3735
From List-Managers-Owner Thu Jul 15 13:33:48 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA05142; Thu, 15 Jul 93 13:33:48 GMT
Received: from cs-mail.bu.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA05135; Thu, 15 Jul 93 06:33:41 PDT
Received: from CS.BU.EDU by cs-mail.bu.edu (5.61+++/Spike-2.1)
id AA14433; Thu, 15 Jul 93 09:36:45 -0400
From: tasos@cs-mail.bu.edu (Anastasios Kotsikonas)
Received: by cs.bu.edu (5.61+++/Spike-2.1)
id AA12276; Thu, 15 Jul 93 09:36:44 -0400
Message-Id: <9307151336.AA12276@cs.bu.edu>
Subject: Re: X.400 and Anastasios listserver.
To: Alan.Thew@livbird.liv.ac.uk (Alan Thew)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 09:36:43 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: mnejat@lone.alsys.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: <3922.742730010@livbird.liv.ac.uk> from "Alan Thew" at Jul 15, 93 10:53:30 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL20]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 218
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
> If you mean "can listserver handle native X.400?" . The answer is no. You
> need to have a X.400 MTA convert it to RFC822 (can be done) before you
> stand a chamce.
Actually the answer is yes in version 6.0.
Tasos
From List-Managers-Owner Thu Jul 15 14:21:09 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA05282; Thu, 15 Jul 93 14:21:09 GMT
Received: from d.ecc.engr.uky.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA05275; Thu, 15 Jul 93 07:20:59 PDT
Received: from s.ecc.engr.uky.edu by d.ecc.engr.uky.edu (5.59/25-eef)
id AA21766; Thu, 15 Jul 93 09:53:34 EDT
Received: by s.ecc.engr.uky.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA17047; Thu, 15 Jul 93 10:07:13 EDT
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 93 10:07:13 EDT
From: morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Message-Id: <9307151407.AA17047@s.ecc.engr.uky.edu>
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: all I can stand of this prattle
Cc: amillar@bolis.sf-bay.org, ophof@cs.uwindsor.ca
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
>Assuming that we could get consistent syntax among the MLMs,
>wouldn't it help the users to have one reserved name to send
>to? This seems fundamentally obvious to me; what am I missing here?
Well, there are a few stumbling blocks:
- Some sites don't run an MLM of any sort. I do not;
I use the facilities of sendmail to manage the list
and manage users by hand. Should I have to install an
MLM just to run a single mailing list? (If you peruse
the Internet List of Lists, you'll find that the VAST
majority of Internet lists are run in this fashion; I'd
estimate that less than 10% of Internet mailing lists use
an MLM.)
- Some systems place limitations on usernames. As a
matter of fact, "LISTSERV" is a result of BITNET's
8-character limit. 8)
- Lists are running on everything from IBM 3090s to
Crays to AT&T 3B2s to PCs in indivdual homes. Ex-
pecting each of them to provide the same services
may be unrealistic.
>Presumably the best choice to try for some consistency would
>be "listserv@whereever". How does this square with the recent
>flap over intellectual property rights to the name "LISTSERV"?
>
>(*I* am perfectly happy to tell people "I run Majordomo, send your
>requests to listserv@blah.blah. You'll get a reply that
>says From: Majordomo ". It is fine with me.
>But will the Don't-call-it-listserv-when-it-isn't-Eric's-Revised-Listserv
>people have a problem with it?)
Well, I think that the common name would perpetuate the users' problems,
since "listserv" tells you nothing about the command set necessaary for
that particular piece of software. If folks assume (and they seem to do
so frequently) that "listserv@wherever" implies Eric Thomas' LISTSERV,
they'll be surprised by the results of their commands.
>> Or are we going to try to figure out how to improve all these MLMs
>> even more?
>
>Can't argue with that.
Well, I don't think that "improve" should necessarily mean "set of
commands common to every single implementation." The library cata-
loguing folks have been dealing with this very problem; if you surf
the Internet, you'll find catalogs running under NOTIS, INNOPAC,
DOBIS, and dozens of other programs. Is the library crowd screaming
for a global standard? No; they're collecting information across the
spectrum. Look at Billy Barron's UNT Guide to Online Library Resources;
in its appendices, it give the basic command set for the various catalog
facilities in use throughout the Internet. Why not do the same for
MLMs? Organize it conceptually; dedicate a page or two to "getting a
catalog of available mailing lists," and include the instructions for
doing so with LISTSERV, majordomo and others. Is there anything wrong
with that solution?
Remember, too, that LISTSERV represents a decade's work; you won't find
many packages that can match its abilities. In fact, may MLMs don't
even try to do so; the combination of an MLM and an ftp archive is
every bit as good as the 'single source' LISTSERV mail/file server
model.
--Wes
From List-Managers-Owner Thu Jul 15 15:27:39 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA05412; Thu, 15 Jul 93 15:27:39 GMT
Received: from mailman.nsf.gov by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA05405; Thu, 15 Jul 93 08:27:30 PDT
Received: from localhost by mailman.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA17089
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Thu, 15 Jul 1993 11:31:57 -0400
Message-Id: <199307151531.AA17089@mailman.nsf.gov>
From: "Ravin Asar"
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: MLM standards
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 15 Jul 93 00:35:14 -0800.
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 93 11:31:57 EDT
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
The message I received from Alan Millar said:
...
> (*I* am perfectly happy to tell people "I run Majordomo, send your
> requests to listserv@blah.blah. You'll get a reply that
> says From: Majordomo ". It is fine with me.
> But will the Don't-call-it-listserv-when-it-isn't-Eric's-Revised-Listserv
> people have a problem with it?)
> - Alan
...
Recent discussion (except for the brief flaming intermission) appears
to boil down to "reserving" a name for the local part of an email
address. So far, it appears, the only reserved address that has been
deemed necessary is "postmaster" on the Internet (see RFC822 section
6.3) and "POSTMAST" on the BITNet (right?). The one single reason for
this special case is so that there is a single POC for reporting mail
system problems or querying a human at the site about email-related
matters.
It doesn't seem appropriate to set aside an address to suit the
purpose of specialized email *software*. Usage of list server (I use
the term generically) software is something we happen to be seeing a
lot of these days. In the future there could conceivably be other
software that happens to become commonly used. If reserved addresses
were to become the rule of the day, network (Internet and BITNet)
users and developers would constantly have to be up on the "Reserved
Addresses of The Day" list.
In my humble opinion (I've gotten tired of acronyms) the issue of
consistent behaviour between MLMs might be better handled in the
following manner:
a) As AMillar@bolis.sf-bay.org seemed to imply, a standard MINIMAL
command set be established for MLMs to comply with (ala
sendmail, LISTSERV, etc).
b) Leave the issue of setting up an email address for the list
server in the hands of the email system administrators at each
site - it really doesn't have to be anyones business what
address one sets up at one's own site. I don't intend to restart
a heaving debate on intellectual property rights, but in general
local addresses are just that - local. They need *not* purport
to be anything but that.
Note: One might make a lot of enemies if one were to break
with tradition (like aliasing "postmaster" to /dev/null on a
Unix system) but the network users both inside and out would
take care of setting the admin straight. Not to mention that
they would probably get thrown off the Internet, too.
This way if one used an MLM that was "compliant" with the minimal
command set, it would at least respond predictably to commands such
as, say, SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, HELP, etc. One of these commands
(possibly HELP) could be one that returns the list of extra commands
that were in use at that site or with that particular MLM. This would
leave developers/hackers free to add features without affecting the
acceptable or predictable behaviour of the MLM.
-Ravin
Note: Please pardon my lack of knowledge about BITNet conventions.
__________________________________________________________________
Ravin Asar | National Science Foundation
System Manager: Unix Systems | 1800 G St. NW #440
| Washington, DC 20550
Official: postmaster@nsf.gov | Phone: (202) 357-5934
Personal: rasar@nsf.gov | Fax: (202) 357-7663
__________________________________|_______________________________
IMHO
From List-Managers-Owner Thu Jul 15 15:43:54 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA05466; Thu, 15 Jul 93 15:43:54 GMT
Received: from note2.nsf.gov by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA05459; Thu, 15 Jul 93 08:43:41 PDT
Received: from z.nsf.gov by Note2.nsf.gov id aa10112; 15 Jul 93 11:28 EDT
Received: by z.nsf.gov (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA10658; Thu, 15 Jul 93 11:31:30 EDT
Message-Id: <9307151531.AA10658@z.nsf.gov>
From: "Michael H. Morse"
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 11:31:30 EDT
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.1 5/02/90)
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: In case you missed this...
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Eric makes good points, so I thought I'd forward them. --Mike
--- Forwarded mail from Eric Thomas
>From ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE Wed Jul 14 19:11:16 1993
From: Eric Thomas
Subject: Re: The term "Unix-Listserv"
To: "Forum on LISTSERV release 1.7" ,
"Michael H. Morse"
On Wed, 14 Jul 1993 14:25:01 EDT "Michael H. Morse"
said:
>He has done his homework and talked to Eric Thomas about the use of the
>term "listserv". He is very open to suggestions for improvement.
Well excuse me, but this is bullshit. I have explicitly asked Tasos to
change the name of his software and to remove the sentence in the help
file that claims it is a unix implementation of my software (see below).
While I admit I am not FTP'ing the software every day to see if these
changes have been made, to the best of my knowledge he has always ignored
my request, which sets him aside as the only person in the Internet who
refused this simple courtesy. The EARN Association, representing 100k's
of users, made a similar request in a formal, written letter; same
results. Here is the quote I object to, in addition to the name the
software uses to refer to itself (I understand that Tasos has no control
over what individual sites decide to alias to his daemon):
>LISTSERV is a system that was originally designed by Eric Thomas for
>BITNET nodes (...) This version is a bitnet-flavored UNIX implementation
>(not a port of the original LISTSERV),
Most people expect two implementations of X to be compatible, with the
possible exception of a limited number of OS-specific functions. If I
give you a diskette and tell you it contains a MS-DOS implementation of
emacs, which however is not a port of the original code, you will
probably expect the controls to be the same as the GNU emacs on unix,
except that directories might have backslashes. You certainly don't
expect to find EDIT on the diskette. If you bought EDIT from me, thinking
it was emacs, and liked it, the author of emacs would still have reason
to be angry at me for creating all this confusion. Especially if you then
went around to your friends and showed them "emacs", and they decided to
stick with Notepad instead.
Now let me tell you why this upsets me on a personal level. Like Tasos I
have put enormous amounts of time in this, and because I didn't like the
idea of turning into a marketing shark and had a good job with a
comfortable salary, I provided the software free of charge for years. I
will not bore you with all the unrelated problems that I got as a result
of this naive decision. But one of these problems is that people like
Tasos and you seem to think they have a constitutional right and duty to
make me waste hours every month trying to explain to users that 'unix
listserv' has nothing to do with LISTSERV, and that the reason "my" unix
implementation of LISTSERV is not compatible with the VM implementation
is that they have nothing to do with each other.
Now, if I had started selling LISTSERV when there were enough sites using
it to turn a serious profit, ie in 1987, the trademark would have been
registered since that time. It might conceivably only have made it to the
secondary register, but even in that case, after 5 years without any
challenge from a business using the name for trade, it would have been
upgraded to the primary register. Today, anyone using the name 'unix
listserv' for a list manager without my consent would be in the same
situation as someone selling computers under the brand name 'unix Apple'.
But I wouldn't need to worry about that or even type this message,
because the level of respect for private and corporate property in the US
is such that everyone would find it perfectly normal that only I can use
the name 'listserv' for list managers and only Apple can use the name
'Apple' for personal computers. But since I was naive enough to decide to
make my efforts freely available, I am now in the situation I am in, with
dozens of people claiming I am just a megalomaniac fascist who thinks he
owns the letters that make up the word LISTSERV, and adding this to their
list of punch-card jokes, hehe. Note that the fact that the trademark was
not registered when the product was first released doesn't mean it cannot
be registered now. In fact, it is common practice to register trademarks
in only one country, and use a trademark under common law in all others
until you need to have your rights enforced. I didn't try to register
LISTSERV as a trademark when Tasos started using the name because we're
talking $1-2k if it goes smoothly and lots of talking to individuals
whose company I do not really enjoy, but there is nothing that says you
have to register a trademark initially or never.
Anyway, now things are a lot simpler. LISTSERV has finally become a
product, and every time an organization without a mailing list manager
installs Tasos's software because they thought it was the same as the VM
LISTSERV, this is going to constitute a potential loss of business for
the company that distributes LISTSERV. Sometimes the organization in
question would not be interested in a VM version anyway, so it won't make
much of a difference. And sometimes it will be a corporation with many
IBM mainframes and the loss will be genuine (you can never be sure of
course, but you can make a good estimate). So this is no longer a
personal problem to be dealt with at an emotional level, this is a simple
business problem that has to be handled as such. The company that sells
LISTSERV is not interested in solving the personal problems I may have
with various individuals, however they obviously want to make sure they
don't lose business because the name is being abused (until Tasos started
using it, and to the best of my knowledge, the VM LISTSERV was the only
software that had ever used that name since 1986, and there was NO user
confusion). A typical one-time initial license plus one year of service
for a corporate site is around $10k (per machine running the software).
Now, $10k is not worth getting angry and excited about, but if the
confusion increases and it turns out, in 6-12 months, that $50k is closer
to the mark, it will have become a serious business problem - something
one might want to spend $10-20k to fix, with a good hope of return on
this investment within the next year. The usual way to solve such
problems in the corporate world is to feed a big pile of money to lawyers
to cause them to extract another big pile of money from someone else, and
in this game the only party that ever wins is the lawyers' lobby. It
would be sad and unfortunate, but the logic is inescapable. If you tried
this with Apple, you'd get a polite letter first, then threats, then a
lawyer - and that's if you're lucky enough not to get the lawyer right
away.
The reason I am so pleased with the present setup is that it puts the
moral responsibility out of my hands. Neither party has any interest in
seeing this happen; there is little or nothing the vendor can do to avoid
loss of business due to inaccurate (or at best misleading) claims made by
other people, so the responsibility is entirely in Tasos's hands. He is
free to claim that there is no possibility for misunderstanding because
he doesn't see any, and if that is true there will indeed be no
confusion, hence no loss of business can possibly be reported and there
will be no problem. If on the other hand it turned out that confusion
does exist and the distributor hears of enough (confirmed) cases where
business was actually lost to be willing to flush $20k down the drain to
remove this possibility, Tasos will have noone but himself to blame for
anything that might happen.
Eric
From List-Managers-Owner Thu Jul 15 15:44:18 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA05482; Thu, 15 Jul 93 15:44:18 GMT
Received: from rip.psg.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA05467; Thu, 15 Jul 93 08:44:10 PDT
Received: by rip.psg.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #5)
id m0oGVWT-000307C; Thu, 15 Jul 93 08:47 PDT
Message-Id:
From: randy@psg.com (Randy Bush)
Subject: Re: MLM standards
To: rasar@nsf.gov (Ravin Asar)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 08:47:05 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: <199307151531.AA17089@mailman.nsf.gov> from "Ravin Asar" at Jul 15, 93 11:31:57 am
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 772
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
> So far, it appears, the only reserved address that has been
> deemed necessary is "postmaster" on the Internet (see RFC822 section
> 6.3) and "POSTMAST" on the BITNet (right?).
'usenet' on all Usenet sites, 'hostmaster' on DNS serving hosts. There is
documentation on the former, but I believe the latter is mere convention.
And, if anyone is counting votes this time around this ancient discussion:
o I support a universal means of detecting mail from a mailing list, if
only to prevent annoyance from clueless vacation programs.
o I do not support a universal list maintainer service interface, as
different list maintainers wish to provide different services. A
minimal command set might be useful, but I mean *minimal*, e.g. 'help'.
Bah humbug.
From List-Managers-Owner Thu Jul 15 16:06:30 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA05575; Thu, 15 Jul 93 16:06:30 GMT
Received: from ub-gate.UB.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA05568; Thu, 15 Jul 93 09:06:24 PDT
Received: from bolis.UUCP by ub-gate.UB.com (4.1/SMI-4.1[UB-1.8])
id AA02027; Thu, 15 Jul 93 09:09:30 PDT
Received: by hock.bolis.sf-bay.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #6)
id m0oGVGc-0002z6C; Thu, 15 Jul 93 08:30 PDT
Message-Id:
From: Alan Millar
Subject: Re: all I can stand of this prattle
To: chip@chinacat.unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 08:30:41 -0800 (PDT)
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: from "Chip Rosenthal" at Jul 15, 93 03:33:29 am
Reply-To: Alan Millar
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 891
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Verily didst Chip Rosenthal rise up and spake thus:
>
> > Assuming that we could get consistent syntax among the MLMs,
> > wouldn't it help the users to have one reserved name to send
> > to? This seems fundamentally obvious to me; what am I missing here?
>
> We should stick with the Internet convention of using a `-request'
> address, and the local administrator should feel free to alias that
> to whatever he or she feels inclined to do.
This is fine for manually administered lists, but it seems silly to
send a message to "foolist-request" with a message "subscribe foolist",
doesn't it?
---- ,,,,
Alan Millar amillar@bolis.SF-Bay.org __oo \
System Administrator =___/
I can't give you brains, but I can give you a diploma -Wizard of Oz to Scarecrow
From List-Managers-Owner Thu Jul 15 16:06:50 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA05591; Thu, 15 Jul 93 16:06:50 GMT
Received: from ub-gate.UB.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA05581; Thu, 15 Jul 93 09:06:41 PDT
Received: from bolis.UUCP by ub-gate.UB.com (4.1/SMI-4.1[UB-1.8])
id AA02039; Thu, 15 Jul 93 09:09:41 PDT
Received: by hock.bolis.sf-bay.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #6)
id m0oGVj9-0002ywC; Thu, 15 Jul 93 09:00 PDT
Message-Id:
From: Alan Millar
Subject: Re: all I can stand of this prattle
To: morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 09:00:09 -0800 (PDT)
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: <9307151407.AA17047@s.ecc.engr.uky.edu> from "Wes Morgan" at Jul 15, 93 10:07:13 am
Reply-To: Alan Millar
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 4870
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Verily didst Wes Morgan rise up and spake thus:
> >Assuming that we could get consistent syntax among the MLMs,
> >wouldn't it help the users to have one reserved name to send
> >to? This seems fundamentally obvious to me; what am I missing here?
>
> Well, there are a few stumbling blocks:
>
> - Some sites don't run an MLM of any sort. I do not;
Huh? I wasn't even considering non-MLM lists. All I was talking
about was getting consistency among MLMs.
> - Some systems place limitations on usernames. As a
> matter of fact, "LISTSERV" is a result of BITNET's
> 8-character limit. 8)
This isn't a stumbling block if we choose an 8-character name,
such as "listserv"....
> - Lists are running on everything from IBM 3090s to
> Crays to AT&T 3B2s to PCs in indivdual homes. Ex-
> pecting each of them to provide the same services
> may be unrealistic.
Maybe, but getting the few most-common MLMs such as Tasos' and
Majordomo to use consistent syntax and addresses is hardly rocket
science. Getting MOST of the MLMs in use to be consistent is
still worth doing.
> Well, I think that the common name would perpetuate the users' problems,
> since "listserv" tells you nothing about the command set necessaary for
> that particular piece of software.
There is NO reason that all MLMs could not accept a simple subset
that is consistent. I would bet that 80% or more of all traffic to
an MLM consists of just "subscribe" and "unsubscribe", and 80%
of the MLM users will probably only ever use those two commands.
A distant third and fourth would probably be asking for a list of
lists and a list of subscribers on a list.
Pretty much all MLMs share these four features. What is the problem with
making them consistent?
Majordomo explicitly tests and rejects "subscribe list your name"
instead of quietly ignoring "your name". What is the POINT?!
> If folks assume (and they seem to do
> so frequently) that "listserv@wherever" implies Eric Thomas' LISTSERV,
> they'll be surprised by the results of their commands.
I understand that all MLMs do not share the same functionality.
So of course their command will be rejected. But why must it
reject the two most common commands that most users will only
ever use, instead of accepting them when it could?
> Well, I don't think that "improve" should necessarily mean "set of
> commands common to every single implementation."
I think "common set of most often used commands for features that
all MLMs already share anyways" is an improvement.
What MLM doesn't allow you to subscribe to an open list?
What MLM doesn't allow you to unsubscribe?
What MLM doesn't allow you to get at list of the lists managed by this MLM?
What MLM doesn't allow you to get a list of subscribers on a list?
What is wrong with making these most-often-used commands consistent,
and rejecting only the other misc commands?
> The library cata-
> loguing folks have been dealing with this very problem; if you surf
> the Internet, you'll find catalogs running under NOTIS, INNOPAC,
> DOBIS, and dozens of other programs. Is the library crowd screaming
> for a global standard? No; they're collecting information across the
> spectrum. Look at Billy Barron's UNT Guide to Online Library Resources;
> in its appendices, it give the basic command set for the various catalog
> facilities in use throughout the Internet. Why not do the same for
> MLMs? Organize it conceptually; dedicate a page or two to "getting a
> catalog of available mailing lists," and include the instructions for
> doing so with LISTSERV, majordomo and others. Is there anything wrong
> with that solution?
Excuse me for oversimplifying, but a library card catalog is probably
an order of magnitude more complex than a simple list server. I think
library folks are not screaming for consistency because the catalogs
are already established and would probably take a significant amount
of programming to change. In addition, a catalog is highly interactive;
it will get enough use for the user to learn its syntax and features.
Having to learn different syntax for an MLM that the user will send one
or two commands to every few months is different.
> Remember, too, that LISTSERV represents a decade's work; you won't find
> many packages that can match its abilities. In fact, may MLMs don't
> even try to do so; the combination of an MLM and an ftp archive is
> every bit as good as the 'single source' LISTSERV mail/file server
> model.
So why can't the MLM part of the MLM/ftp-archive pair be consistent?
- Alan
---- ,,,,
Alan Millar amillar@bolis.SF-Bay.org __oo \
System Administrator =___/
I can't give you brains, but I can give you a diploma -Wizard of Oz to Scarecrow
From List-Managers-Owner Thu Jul 15 16:10:03 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA05608; Thu, 15 Jul 93 16:10:03 GMT
Received: from harper-hall.cit.cornell.edu by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA05599; Thu, 15 Jul 93 09:09:54 PDT
Received: from [132.236.69.173] ([132.236.69.173]) by harper-hall.cit.cornell.edu with SMTP id <511503>; Thu, 15 Jul 1993 12:12:48 -0400
X-Sender: mss1@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 13:12:34 -0400
To: morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan), List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: mss1@cornell.edu (Michael S Shappe)
Subject: Re: all I can stand of this prattle
Message-Id: <93Jul15.121248edt.511503@harper-hall.cit.cornell.edu>
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At 16.58 930714 -0400, Wes Morgan wrote:
>Did you stop to think that this *might* just be a limitation of
>the hardware, instead of the software? There's a big difference
>between an IBM 3090 running LISTSERV and a Sun SPARCStation run-
>ning Tasos' code (or Majordomo, or any other MLM).
Wes' point is very well made. It also matters what else is running on the
hardware at the same time. For example, when Unix-Listserver 5.5 shared an
otherwise adequate SPARC 2 machine with our main campus gateway
('cornell.edu') and our central QI server, performance, frankly, sucked,
once we had lots of lists, several with >500 subscribers.
Now that Listserv is more or less on its OWN Sparc 2 (sharing with Gopher
and IRC, both of which are comparatively lightweight here), it's happy. It
will be even happier when that machine becomes a Sparc 10. We're running
over 200 lists, now, including a couple of
very-high-volume+large-subscription-base without difficulty.
--
Michael S. Shappe
From List-Managers-Owner Thu Jul 15 16:32:20 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA05686; Thu, 15 Jul 93 16:32:20 GMT
Received: from mailman.nsf.gov by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA05679; Thu, 15 Jul 93 09:32:11 PDT
Received: from localhost by mailman.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA18707
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Thu, 15 Jul 1993 12:36:34 -0400
Message-Id: <199307151636.AA18707@mailman.nsf.gov>
From: "Ravin Asar"
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: all I can stand of this prattle
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 15 Jul 93 03:33:29 -0500.
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 93 12:36:34 EDT
Sender: List-Managers-Owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
The message I received from Chip Rosenthal said:
...
> We should stick with the Internet convention of using a `-request'
> address, and the local administrator should feel free to alias that
> to whatever he or she feels inclined to do.
>
Ummm....I wouldn't go so far as to call it an "Internet convention".
I've mentioned it before, but isn't it actually an implementation
convention? Sendmail, for example, uses owner-foo by default.
But....it's like deja vu all over again...
-Ravin
From List-Managers-Owner Thu Jul 15 18:08:24 1993
Return-Path:
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA05988; Thu, 15 Jul 93 18:08:24 GMT
Received: from ub-gate.UB.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1/Brent-921015)
id AA05981; Thu, 15 Jul 93 11:08:15 PDT
Received: from bolis.UUCP by ub-gate.UB.com (4.1/SMI-4.1[UB-1.8])
id AA07404; Thu, 15 Jul 93 11:11:21 PDT
Received: by hock.bolis.sf-bay.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #6)
id m0oGXEo-0002z6C; Thu, 15 Jul 93 10:36 PDT
Message-Id:
From: Alan Millar
Subject: Re: MLM standards
To: rasar@nsf.gov (Ravin Asar)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 10:36:56 -0800 (PDT)
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: <199307151531.AA17089@mailman.nsf.gov> from "Ravin Asar" at Jul 15, 93 11:31:57 am
Reply-To: Alan Millar